Haemophiliacs: Recombinant Treatment

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I have an interest to declare, but not a financial one, as president of the Haemophilia Society.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government when they now expect to provide recombinant treatment for people with haemophilia irrespective of age or where they live in the United Kingdom.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are considering the case for extending the provision of recombinant clotting factors to all haemophilia patients in England.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is it not cruelly wrong in principle that people with the same disability are given or refused safer medical treatment according to whether they live in Scotland and Wales or in England? And more especially so when contaminated blood products that were prescribed for them have already taken the lives of over 1,000 haemophiliacs in the NHS's worst-ever treatment disaster. Is it not also plainly wrong that even the current policy of entitling children in England to the safer recombinant treatment is sometimes ignored? What have Ministers done to protect such vulnerable children? When will right be done?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I acknowledge the force with which my noble friend and the Haemophilia Society have put forward the case over recent years. There is no evidence that recombinant clotting factors are more efficacious than plasma-based products. My noble friend is certainly right to suggest that policy varies in different parts of the United Kingdom, with Scotland and Wales committed to providing recombinant treatment for all haemophilia patients. As I said, we very much understand the concerns of the people who have been so tragically affected, and we are considering the position in England.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that patients with haemophilia are experiencing great difficulty in obtaining dental treatment? When those patients have been refused and have taken up the matter with the United Kingdom Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation, they have been told that the matter should be referred to the CJD Incident Panel. Is that because they are being treated with non-recombinant factor or would all haemophilia cases be so referred, and why are such referrals made to the variant CJD treatment centre?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that the reference to variant CJD has come about because consultation on risk assessment in relation to the use of medical instruments has just concluded. However, I shall be happy to follow up this matter with the noble Baroness. If she has specific cases to bring to my attention, I shall certainly be prepared to look into them. In relation to access to dental treatment, I would also expect community dental services at local level to be asked to look into matters which affect people locally.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this matter concerns the basic safety of the treatment? As recombinant treatment is seen to be safer and more efficient, is it not the case that a group who historically have suffered so badly should receive that treatment straightaway?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says. As I said, the matter is being considered carefully by the Government at present. However, the advice that I have received is that there is no evidence that recombinant clotting factors are more efficacious than plasma-based products. But, of course, I recognise the feelings of those in the community and the fears of parents of children and, indeed, of all those who receive blood products through infectious agents. That is why the Government are considering the matter.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I also declare an interest as a vice-president of the Haemophilia Society. Is the Minister aware that in Newcastle upon Tyne 75 per cent of haemophiliacs have contracted HIV? In addition, bearing in mind the problems of CJD and hepatitis C, is it not time that haemophiliacs were given the safest possible form of clotting agents?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I do not believe that I can add to the response that I gave to the noble Lord. As I said, the advice that I have received is that as yet there is no evidence to suggest that there is an issue of safety between the different products. We understand the feelings of those in the community who are involved and affected by the tragic events that have occurred. We are obviously considering the matter.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, if it is now possible for the manufacturers of recombinant factor 8 to produce a sufficient amount of the treatment for everyone who might need it, is there now any reason why that material should not be available to all haemophiliacs, regardless of age?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend is right in identifying that a shortage of recombinant factor 8 has limited supplies to the UK over the past year. My understanding is that that shortage has now eased up and that manufacturers have increased production. Obviously that is one of a number of issues that needs to be taken into account.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, if the Minister and his colleagues are prepared to consider beta interferon for MS sufferers, why should the Government not enter into a novel risk-sharing arrangement over recombinant clotting factors as they have done in relation to beta interferon?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that is certainly an interesting suggestion. I would say only that at present these matters are under consideration by the Government.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, further to my noble friend's reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, can he tell the House how many people with haemophilia have received blood that was donated by donors who have since died of variant CJD?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the figures so far are that eight people with variant CJD are known to have been blood donors and 22 people have been identified as having received transfused blood from donors who later developed variant CJD. I understand that the total number of deaths from variant CJD is 106.

Earl Howe: My Lords, have the Government estimated the additional cost of recombinant treatment to haemophiliacs were it to be available in England?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the cost that has been made available to me is in the region of £50 million a year.

Foot and Mouth Disease: Contingency Planning

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have fully implemented the European Union Foot-and-Mouth Disease Contingency Plans for Great Britain (last revised in July 2000) and, if so, when this took place.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the contingency plan provided a general overview of our planned response to an outbreak and was approved by the European Commission. It was a strategic plan supported by detailed operational guidance and veterinary instructions. An interim contingency plan is now being prepared based on recent disease experience and current policy and it will build on existing relationships between interested parties. It codifies the operational regime developed during the recent outbreak and since, and will complement the existing strategic framework and the detailed instructions.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am puzzled. The Minister has not answered my question. I asked whether the contingency plan has been implemented and, if so, when. I have the impression that it never was implemented. Am I correct?

Lord Whitty: No, my Lords. The noble Countess should listen more carefully. I indicated that the contingency plan provided the general overview by which we responded to the disease. I have told the House before that part of the problem with the original contingency plan was that we assumed that we were faced with a new outbreak, whereas in fact the outbreak had been spreading for some considerable time due to the trading patterns within the industry at that time. Nevertheless, it provided the strategic overview that we followed. Therefore, it was implemented in line with what we had told the European Commission. Since then, in some respects we have had experience of the shortcomings of that plan, although the bulk of it still stands. We are learning those lessons and we are now drawing up a new contingency plan.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am slightly surprised by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, being "smidgy"—sharp—to the noble Countess, Lady Mar, as he did not answer her Question. The guidance clearly states that the person in charge should be the chief vet. Can the Minister confirm that, at the beginning of the outbreak, the chief vet was in charge but was removed, that the chief scientist then took charge and was removed, and that the Prime Minister then took charge and everything went wrong?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, perhaps I was wasting my "smidginess", if that was the expression, on the noble Countess. Perhaps I should be more negative in my reaction to the noble Baroness, but hers was such a hilariously misleading view of history that I do not believe it is sensible for us to pursue it. The Government are presenting their own evidence to the Anderson inquiry, as will other parties, on the sequence of events. The noble Baroness is correct in saying that the original contingency plan required the chief vet to be in charge. In the event we were dealing with the kind of outbreak that was not really covered by the contingency plan, which is what I said earlier.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the Minister believe that it is relevant to consider whether the implementation of this plan was in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights and, if so, why?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, in my view the actions taken during the course of the disease came under legislation that was consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights. In so far as the contingency plan is relevant, it was cleared with the European Commission in advance. No doubt we shall return to this topic when we deal with the latter stage of the Animal Health Bill.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: Why?

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House how and at what stage local authorities were involved in discussing the contingency plan, given their role in relation to animal health and as the highway authority that had to close footpaths? Will he also tell the House at what stage they will be involved in discussions on the current contingency plan so that they can include it in their emergency planning?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put her finger on one of the problems with the process of contingency planning prior to the disease. The contingency plan had been discussed with various parties, including the local authorities, but the dry runs of the plan that have been conducted with the vets and with other officials were entirely internal. From that experience we have learned that we need to engage not only in the planning process but also in the testing of the process with the local authorities, the farmers, the hauliers and everyone else. Therefore, in the future we need a stakeholder-based contingency plan. Future contingency plans will pursue that.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I was surprised to see that Article 9.2 of the contingency plans for Great Britain estimates that specimens can be delivered to the laboratories within a maximum of eight hours. Clearly, that was not the experience of farmers who desperately wanted to know whether their animals were infected or not. Can the Minister tell the House why there is a considerable divergence between what the European Union is saying on this subject and what actually happened?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, two or three different issues are wrapped up in that question. The European Commission's guidelines would relate to delivering samples as quickly as possible to the laboratory. In the early stages, there were only one or two sites to which they could be delivered. As the disease progressed we stepped up the capacity from about 400 tests a week to over 200,000 tests a week. In the beginning there was the problem of having to travel some distance and there were other logistical delays in delivering samples. As a result of the disease we have learned of techniques that would mean quicker testing.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that after the 1969 outbreak Western Command produced for the Army its report on the lessons learned. Can the Minister say whether, in connection with the absolutely crucial role played by the Army in trying to bring the disease under control, the Government's response will contain a separate report from the Ministry of Defence on the lessons it learned in tackling the outbreak?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that the Ministry of Defence has internally drawn up its own assessment of the disease and of the Army's role. That will be fed into the committees of inquiry and will be part of the overall government response. But certainly it has drawn those lessons together.

Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, will the Government take note of the findings of the various committees that are looking into the lessons learned, especially those from the Royal Society, before they draw up the final contingency plans that are on the board?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the process I described was an interim contingency plan which will take into account from the Government and other bodies the lessons learned up until now. Clearly, any final or definitive contingency plan will have to take into account the outcome of both the Royal Society and Dr Anderson's considerations and, indeed, of the assessment being made by the EU of the contingency planning and other matters. So the final version will have taken those points into account.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, following upon my noble friend's question, will the Ministry of Defence findings be published?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there will be an overall government response which will incorporate the Ministry of Defence's part of that.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Whitty: Well, my Lords, I referred carefully in response to the noble Lord, Lord King, to an internal document from the Ministry of Defence which will form part therefore of the overall response. Whether or not that gets published will be a matter for Dr Anderson and his inquiry. Certainly, the Government would have no objection to the Government's submission being published with the eventual report.

Marine Environment

Lord Judd: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare an interest as vice-president of the Council for National Parks and as a trustee or member of other environment charities.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the value of the marine environment in the seas around the British Isles in terms of employment, industrial activity, leisure and recreation and cultural heritage, and what action they are taking to protect and enhance this asset.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is no standard definition of the marine environment within the standard industrial classification, which provides the basis for official statistics on specific industry sectors. The marine-related activities undoubtedly make a valuable contribution to GDP and to employment.
	Our seas are also rich in biodiversity. A range of measures is in hand to afford them further protection. The forthcoming marine stewardship report will set out our strategy for the sustainable development and conservation of the marine environment.

Lord Judd: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that reply, will he not agree that there is a crisis threatening this very special asset? Will he further agree that this crisis is evidenced by declining fish stocks, in toxic poisoning of marine mammals and in the disappearance of wetlands, not to mention the accumulation of radioactive waste and the effects of climate change? Is not responsibility for managing this asset spread through too many authorities and departments? Should there not be designated Ministers in every department in Westminster and in devolved administrations to ensure the application of strategic policy with clout?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, on these occasions, I am always advised that the demarcation of government departments and ministerial responsibility is a matter for the Prime Minister. I am not supposed to comment further. However, I believe that in this area there is a degree of co-ordination and that the pressures which my noble friend rightly describes on the marine environment are catered for by the responses of the various agencies, the majority of which come under the aegis of my department.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, last March the Prime Minister announced that there would be a series of marine stewardship reports. In his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and to a series of Written Questions from the noble Lord, the Minister referred to,
	"the forthcoming marine stewardship report".
	Can he tell us, first, when that report will come out; and, secondly, what that and the other reports will cover and what the timetable is for them?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the report to which my replies to my noble friend refer is the first of a series of reports which will address the full range of impacts placed on the marine environment, including shipping, climate change and some of the other pressures that he referred to. We hope to publish that first report in the spring.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords—

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, first.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, do the Government contemplate any change in the jurisdiction over Rockall and the surrounding seas?

Lord Whitty: I think that the answer to that is, "No", my Lords. If I am misinformed on the matter I shall let the noble Lord know.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, do the Government include in their estimate those assets which are on and under the seabed—for example, oil, gas and substances used in medicine?

Lord Whitty: Yes, my Lords, the economic exploitation of some of the resources of the marine environment are particularly important. So it is not just a question of conservation; it is also a question of carrying out the economic activities ranging from oil and gas right through to very precious materials which can be used in smaller quantities with environmental protection in mind. Certainly that is the major dimension of our approach to the marine environment and a major source of employment.

Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the report by 150 international leading marine scientists which has drawn attention to the fact that fisheries benefit greatly from the proximity of marine nature reserves? Can he explain why the seven marine nature reserves, which were identified over 20 years ago in 1981, have not yet been attended to? Only two have been designated from that list of seven. One more was added in Northern Ireland and that has since been designated. What is the hold up? Why have the Government not carried forward the programme which was under way when they took office?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government are committed to improving nature conservation of marine nature reserves. We are considering ways in which conservation out to 200 nautical miles can be improved. Hitherto we have concentrated on the 12-mile limit. We are considering over 100 Natura 2000 sites. They are special areas of conservation under the habitats directive and the special protection areas for birds under the birds directive. To date, there are 62 candidates for special area conservation status. So this is an ongoing programme which will protect the most important sites already identified.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the House of Commons Agriculture Committee in the Session 1998-99 produced a report on sea fishing which recommended that,
	"the Government establish for the first time a clear, agreed and coherent strategy for the management and development of the UK fishing industry"?
	In January 2001 the Fish Industry Forum produced a draft strategy which included its requirements. Can the Minister tell the House whether this strategy has been developed by the Government; and, if so, when will it be published?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that on the one hand the common fisheries policy is largely determined at the European level and that there is a review of the common fisheries policy which is starting this year. The Fisheries Council and my colleague, Elliot Morley, who is involved in that, are beginning to focus on that matter. So that is one dimension. Other aspects of how we develop and protect the British industry will be followed in that context. Fisheries is also a devolved matter. Therefore, both the Scottish and Northern Irish authorities have their own strategic approach to these matters.

Postcomm

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they believe that Postcomm's proposals for the Royal Mail will be in the interests of residents in rural areas.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, Postcomm's primary statutory duty, laid down in the Postal Services Act 2000, is to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. Subject to that primary duty it also has a duty to further the interests of postal users where appropriate by promoting effective competition between postal operators. It is for Postcomm to decide how it carries out these two duties. Postcomm's document, Proposals For Effective Competition in UK Postal Services, published on Thursday 31st January, is for public consultation and we would expect any concerns about the universal service obligation to be thoroughly considered.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, my Question asked whether the Government believe that the proposals will be in the best interests of residents in rural areas. Perhaps the Minister will comment on what feedback he has had from such residents, because the feedback that I have received is that they do not believe that the proposals will be in their interests. Nothing else that has happened to what was the Post Office has been in their interest, from the closure of hundreds of post offices to the mess that cabling for rural areas, which is being undertaken by the private sector, is now in. So the lesson of privatisation, without even considering the railways, suggests to them that Postcomm's proposals are hasty, ill thought-out as to their effect on rural areas and certainly not in their interests.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the reason for setting up Postcomm was for it to advise or take action in such areas. It has put forward these proposals and they are being consulted on. It is clearly inappropriate for the Government, having appointed Postcomm to do that job and given it the necessary authority, immediately to state their own view on the matter. The reason for the consultation is clearly to decide whether the two duties given it by Parliament are being handled in the right way.
	Although we may blame the Post Office for many things, to blame it for broadband, which is of course a telecommunications matter, is carrying its responsibility too far. As for issues concerning the rural network, which I think is what is of concern to the noble Baroness, they have nothing to do with this issue. They have to do with declining customer numbers for rural post offices. We tackled that difficult issue through the recommendations of the Performance and Innovation Unit report, which we accepted.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given that 547 sub-post offices have closed, that the Post Office or Consignia has shown a heavy loss for the first time in 25 years, that 63,000 days have been lost through industrial action—all of that since April 2000, when the Postal Services Act 2000 came into force—can the Minister say whether the Government think that the Act was a success? Apart from asking what the Government are doing to help those in the country, what are they doing to help anyone in any part of the country—in rural or urban areas?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the figures that we now have for the closure of rural post offices are actually rather better than that. During the first half of this year, there has been a sharp reduction in the number of closures—

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I was not asking about that.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I was going to give the noble Baroness the figures; I thought that there was some dispute about them. I have already dealt with the Act: first, it is a good Act; secondly, there has been rather a short time in which to judge it. As I was about to point out, on the subject before us the performance is better.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, first, may I ask my noble friend to convey to the Post Office my congratulations—and, I am sure, those of many noble Lords—on the excellent issue of stamps for Her Majesty the Queen's Jubilee today? Having said that, does my noble friend think that the seven weeks left for consultation on opening up the post are sufficient or constitute undue haste that is likely to cause more difficulty? The recent National Audit Office report expresses concern that introducing competition could affect rural services. Will the Minister give us an assurance that rural services will be protected if the fears of the National Audit Office are confirmed?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that the report was published at the beginning of January and the consultation period lasts until the end of March, which seems to me reasonable. As I said, the issue of competition is not directly related to the closure of rural post offices. The issue there is the finances of not Consignia but rural post offices—the difficulty that they have in being profitable with falling customer numbers. It is worth remembering that 56 per cent of the rural post offices that closed last year were already open for only restricted hours and had no shop and fewer than 70 customers per week. That is the nature of the problem; it is not to do with the finances of Consignia.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Lord Layard and the Lord Hunt of Chesterton set down for today shall each be limited to two-and-a-half hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Poverty

Lord Layard: rose to call attention to developments since 1997 in tackling poverty and supporting families; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, there is nothing more shocking than poverty in the midst of plenty. It is shocking in any country, yet that is what existed when Labour came to power in 1997. During the 18 years of the previous government, relative poverty in this country had doubled, so that a quarter of our population was living at below one-half of the average income. Worst of all, child poverty had more than doubled, so that one in three of our children was in poverty on that definition—more than anywhere else in Europe except Italy.
	Faced with that situation, the Government had to set priorities and, rightly, they put child poverty at the top of the list. Children are the most vulnerable people in our society and they are also our future. So the Prime Minister made a bold and courageous commitment to halving child poverty by 2010 and eliminating it by 2020. That is an extremely formidable challenge, but the Chancellor has devised a powerful strategy for heading us in the right direction. The strategy has three prongs: first, get more people into work; secondly, improve their pay through better education; thirdly, where people are still poor, transfer income. If we consider each of those elements, we can see how much has been achieved.
	On the work front, our problem is with workless families—families in which neither parent is working. In 1997, nearly one child in five in Britain lived in such a family. That is one of the highest rates in Europe. What a terrible start to life, but, also, what a cause of poverty. How to get more people into work? Obviously through a stable macro-economic policy, which has been achieved, but also through supply-side measures to mobilise those who are not in work. It is on the supply side that our Government have done especially well compared with, for example, France and Germany. In recent years, there have been high levels of job vacancy in all three countries, but Britain has mobilised the unemployed to fill those vacancies by a mixture of active help and reasonable pressure.
	The Employment Service now provides more help, advice and chivvying than ever before. Through the New Deal, it has largely prevented the tragic drift of people into long-term unemployment, guaranteeing activity to every young person within roughly nine months of their becoming unemployed and to every adult within roughly two years. That is now a right for the unemployed, but there is a corresponding responsibility to make use of that help if they want to receive any help from the state. There is no fifth option. That is the formula. It worked in Denmark and Holland, for example, and it is working here.
	For other claimants who are not in work, particularly single parents and people with disabilities, the Government now rightly insist that they attend work-focused interviews at which they consider whether to seek some kind of work. They can take advantage, where relevant, of the more generous support that the Government now provide for child care.
	What are the results? They are not bad. There are a million more people in work; the proportion of children living in workless households is down from 18 per cent to 15 per cent, a 3 per cent drop, corresponding to the fall in worklessness; and 52 per cent of lone parents are now in work, compared with 46 per cent in 1997. Of course, that is only a beginning. Five per cent unemployment is very high, compared with what we could have. We still have too many people outside the labour force. We know from other countries that we can go much further in mobilising the non-employed. The Government have committed themselves to an integrated approach to the problem, creating Jobcentre Plus, which brings together work and benefits, and the Department for Work and Pensions.
	Work will not end poverty if income in work is too low. During the 1980s, there was an extraordinary increase in pay inequality in this country. It became more unequal than at any time since records began. That was mainly due to the scandalous neglect of the skills of at least a half of our young people. Although our higher education was the best in Europe, our vocational education below degree level was among the worst. Half our young people got no serious education beyond 16. However, since 1997, a major educational revolution has been afoot, with proper standards of literacy and numeracy achieved by 70 per cent of 11 year-olds in 2001 and a stronger expansion of sub-degree vocational education, modern apprenticeship and basic skills for adults as compared with more academic forms of education for the group that will end up at the higher income level.
	That policy, if continued resolutely, will, at long last, reduce the disgracefully unequal nature of our education system, one of the most unequal in Europe, which has done so much to produce unequal incomes in later life. Of course, it will take years to affect the overall pattern of wages. If pay is too low to sustain a family, there is no alternative to income transfer. The national minimum wage can play some role, but the main burden must fall on the Exchequer. That is why the Government have hugely increased the scales of assistance to poor families, in work and out of work. I am thinking of the working families' tax credit, child benefit and benefits for the workless. Those increases have gone far beyond the adjustments for price inflation that were provided by the previous government. As a result of the changes in benefits and in personal tax, there are now 1.2 million fewer children in poverty than if benefits and taxes had been indexed to prices. That is a big number.
	One thing is clear: such generosity must be repeated again and again, even if we want just to keep poverty constant. We will have to run just in order to stand still because of the logic of the situation. Unless benefits rise at roughly the same rate as average incomes, relative poverty must, by definition, increase unless it is cut by having more people in work or reductions in low pay. Although higher employment rates can make a contribution in the short term, it is unlikely that pay will become more equal at all soon. The main point I make is that if we want to reduce poverty—not just hold the line—we must see a steady rise in the share of national income going to child support. That is not always realised, but it is a logical implication of the Prime Minister's pledge.
	In the context of benefits, the argument that we should reduce the poverty trap by further reducing the steepness of the benefit tapers must be strongly rejected. I am sure that someone here will advocate that, but it must be resisted. It is expensive and ill targeted, and it raises the implicit rate of tax for some at the margin, even as it reduces it for others. One problem that must be faced is housing benefit. It traps people into non-employment more than any other benefit, and it distorts the housing market. It must be gradually absorbed into the existing cash benefits.
	What can be said about the overall results of the Government's anti-poverty policies? Unfortunately, there is a long lag before the data come. We have had no really good data since 1999-2000. That is over two years ago and before many of the policies that I mentioned began to bite. However, we do have some crude data from the family expenditure survey for 2000-01 that are encouraging when compared with those for the previous year. For all households, the disposable income of the lower income groups appears, at last, to have risen significantly faster than for the middle and higher groups.
	The figures cover pensioners, as well as people of working age and their children. As there is no time to look further at every group of poor people, I want finally to consider the record on pensioners. A number of us in the House are pensioners. It is important to realise that the world has changed and that the pattern of poverty has changed; it is remarkable. Today, most poverty is due to low pay or worklessness. Only 20 per cent of the poor are pensioners, which compares with a half in the 1970s. That is because of the increase in other forms of low pay. The risk of poverty for a pensioner is barely higher than it is for the average person. In fact, nearly 40 per cent of all pensioners are in the top half of the overall income distribution. So the Government's policy towards pensioners must be targeted as it is on other groups in the population.
	We have debated the subject several times, and the strategy is well known. Pensioner poverty is being attacked by the minimum income guarantee, which is to be indexed to earnings for the duration of this Parliament. About 2 million people now benefit from that guarantee. By next April, those people will be over 20 per cent better off, in real terms, than they would have been under the price index policies that the Government inherited. Of course, the guarantee does nothing for those who fall just above it but are still on the margin of poverty. For those whom it affects, it renders useless any savings that they may have made, which is why, from 2003, the Government will introduce the pensioner credit. It will provide the minimum income for people who have only the state pension, but, for others, it will provide an income that rises by 60p in the pound for additional income that a person may have, up to a maximum. A half of all pensioners will benefit from the pensioner credit.
	In the war against poverty, much has been achieved. Looking back, one dreads to contemplate the situation that would have existed had previous policies been continued. Our task is like turning round a liner that was heading in the wrong direction. It will take serious money to deliver the Prime Minister's guarantee. Benefits for children must rise faster than earnings; that is the logical necessity that I mentioned. Real money must go into vocational education for the 50 per cent who are not going to university. A government committed to eliminating poverty should have not only a target for the percentage going to university, but a target for the other group not going to university that demonstrates that we will give them all a skill.
	The Government deserve real praise for the radical measures that they have already adopted. However, if they are really to abolish child poverty, they must go much further. I trust that they will not flinch or fail. I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for bringing this debate before us today. Tackling poverty and supporting families is a prime concern for any government. As John Prescott wrote:
	"Improving the quality of life for the people of this country is perhaps the most important duty of Government".
	However, the figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that there has been "no consistent change" since 1996-97 in the number of children living in poverty, while the number of working-age people in poverty has "remained broadly constant". Millions of people have been trapped on means-tested benefits without any significant impact on poverty trends.
	Among individuals living in households with below 50 per cent of mean income, four out of 10 were not in work; between 20 and 25 per cent lived in households without access to a bank account; and between 50 and 60 per cent lived in families in receipt of one or more income-related benefits.
	The failure of this Government to improve the situation was expressed recently by the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, who is not in his place today, when writing in the Guardian. He commented:
	"New Labour has fulfilled the party's historic destiny to redistribute income. Unfortunately, it has not happened in quite the way that the founding fathers intended . . . If the prime minister knew how wide the gap had become, self-preservation may have persuaded him to dismiss inequality as unimportant rather than acknowledge that he has presided over a tragedy".
	Equal concern was expressed by Child Poverty Action Group. Its report of 26th February last year showed that in 1998-99 4.5 million children in the UK were living in poverty. That figure was an increase of 100,000 during Labour's first two years in office. Those are bleak figures. But what do they mean in practical terms? I suggest that suitable housing and poor health are the major issues, followed closely by under-achievement at school, the difficulty in obtaining jobs and the fear of crime.
	I start with housing. We recognise that a warm home in reasonable condition is something we all value, whether through private ownership or through the rental market. But have the Government had any success in achieving an increase in the availability of single-occupancy units and of new affordable houses?
	In rural areas the lack of provision of affordable homes is acute. Developers have tended to build three, four or five-bedroom houses. But the new PPG3 regulations require them to build more houses per acre and may increase the number of affordable houses for those who are in work and can afford them. Have the Government any plans to change the rules for the very rural villages by reducing or removing the ratio requirement of large to small homes so that local councils will be able to stipulate small units where they are needed?
	The rural housing trust has pointed out that local authorities are often unaware of shortages of suitable accommodation in villages until the people affectedshow up when they move to the town. That was confirmed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which concluded that,
	"the most important role for registered social landlords in addressing concerns about social exclusion and the sustainability of socially balanced communities in rural areas, is still undoubtedly the provision of more affordable housing of good quality for low income households".
	In another place, on 20th July 1999, Miss Armstrong stated the Government's determination to reduce the number of empty government homes and supplied targets. Can the Minister tell us whether those targets have been met? Lastly on this topic I ask what progress has been made in the rented sector, either private or social housing. In passing, will the Minister comment on the Government's plans for dealing with the problems of the housing benefit system, to which the noble Lord, Lord Layard, referred? Over 4 million tenants rely on housing benefit to pay their rents. For many of them, eviction has been the result of failures in the benefit payments system.
	One of the ills of poverty is poor health. We are becoming a sedentary population, overweight and exposing our children to an increased likelihood of ill health in later years. Current research indicates that that will be worsened by the reduction of sport in schools. Will the Minister tell us how many school sports fields have been sold since 1997? Will he also tell us how the new SEN—special educational needs—code squares with the need for poor children to take more exercise?
	Given the housing conditions and the health problems experienced by many of our poorer children, a good education is vital for them. The Education Bill, shortly to arrive in this place, is a mighty tome. But I wonder whether the measures contained therein will actually reduce teachers' burdens. Unruly and violent behaviour, bullying and teachers struggling to control their class are still with us despite the Green Papers, the White Papers and performance-related pay. Education is key to helping children, especially those from poorer homes, to learn and gain skills that will enable them to get a job and succeed in ways that were perhaps not open to their parents.
	There are other important issues with which families on low incomes have to deal. Debt, or "living on tick", for some is the only way they can get by. I have been greatly concerned, as, I suspect, have many other noble Lords, by reports of the levels of interest charged by private individuals and should be grateful for the Minister's comments on whether or not the Government have any proposals to deal with that situation.
	As noble Lords will be aware, I have a hobby horse and cannot resist the temptation, following on from the fourth Question taken in the House this afternoon, to refer to how we make welfare benefit payments. Poorer families rely on the post office to keep them solvent. There is nowhere else for them to go. The closure of sub-post offices and the proposed reorganisation of Consignia fills me with horror; nay, rage. I shall not be affected and suspect most other noble Lords will not be affected either. But millions will. In the four-and-a-half years since 1997 to October 2001, 1,564 post offices have closed. That is over 7 per cent of the total open at the beginning of that period.
	I have already referred to benefit payments and remind your Lordships that one of the most important forms of benefit is the distress payment, the emergency handout, sub, or whatever we call it. A cheque or giro cashed in the post office has provided food for infants, a bed at night, a pair of shoes and many other things besides. Time and again I read of delays caused by the new computerised systems. They may be harder to cheat, but that is not much use if one is starving and needs help.
	Post offices also pay pensions to many older people who have never had and do not want a bank account. In view of the many choices which this Government insist we are open to as parents, children or refugees, I am appalled that they are preparing to close the choice of post offices in that way.
	I once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for giving us the opportunity today to raise some of the important issues that are daily trials for those on low incomes.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for introducing the debate on this extremely important subject. It is an issue on which more and more data are being published which enable us to track precisely what is happening.
	It is right that we should pay tribute to what the Labour Government have achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said, in 1997, 4.7 million children in this country—one in three—lived in poverty. By 2001, this had been reduced to 3.2 million children—one in four. It is still an awful statistic of which we should be genuinely ashamed.
	According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the net effect of the five Labour Budgets has been to increase the income of those in the poorest 10 per cent by some 13 per cent, with the increase going disproportionately to single parents and to full families with large numbers of children, which are the two largest poverty groups.
	Three factors have contributed substantially to these improvements. These were acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Layard. The first is the increase in employment—perhaps above all the increase in employment. The drop in unemployment has made a great deal of difference. This has been substantially due to the economic cycle and much less to any of the new deals which have been put into effect. Secondly, the working families' tax credit and the minimum wage between them have helped very considerably to increase the gains of those in work at the lower end of the income scale. This again is a major improvement. Thirdly, the minimum income guarantee has been an important gain for those not in work and, particularly, for poor pensioners.
	However, there is no room for complacency. As I said, one in four children living in poverty in this country is a shocking statistic. At 25 per cent—at one in four—we have the highest rate of child poverty in Europe. In Sweden it is only 5 per cent—one in 20. Overall rates of deprivation and poverty, as measured by Eurostat, put Britain, at 14.6 per cent, above only Ireland and Portugal; Spain, Italy and Belgium are above us at the 11 to 12 per cent mark; and the Netherlands and the Scandinavians are at the top at 7 to 8 per cent.
	It is also notable that while new Labour's measures have helped to lift some of those at the very bottom of income distribution out of poverty, the gap between rich and poor has not decreased but increased. Whereas the net incomes of the poorest 20 per cent increased by 1.4 per cent during the first four years of the Labour Government, those in the top quartile grew by double that amount, 2.8 per cent. So inequality has increased, not decreased.
	The big question is whether inequality matters. Can we achieve what we want to achieve by just raising the floor? My noble friend Lord Russell will address this matter later, but we should bear that question in mind during our discussions.
	One of the features of the poverty population is that it is surprisingly mobile. Half of the people in the lowest 10 per cent of income in any one year are not among the same 10 per cent the following year. Inevitably, unemployment, illness and family problems mean that there is a degree of mobility among those at the bottom. However, the mobility tends to be among those at the bottom; you do not find people moving from the lowest 10 per cent to the highest 10 per cent. On the whole, they move from the lowest 10 per cent to either the next lowest or the next lowest after that. They move in and out of those brackets.
	There is considerable evidence of persistence in economic fortunes from one generation to another. If your father or your family is poor, your chances of being poor are greater than of being better off. Similarly, if your parents are well to do, your chances of being well to do are very much greater.
	In the 1960s, I worked at the LSE with people such as the noble Lord, Lord Moser. When we talked about poverty then, the euphemism was "deprivation" or "multiple deprivation", and we talked about the "cycle of deprivation". It was clear from all the studies made in the 1960s and 1970s—it is still true today—that those who were poor were more likely to suffer not only from low income but from poor housing, poor health, poor healthcare, poor diet, poor schools, low educational achievement and lower paid jobs. One was interactive with the other; they were mutually reinforcing of poverty.
	This has not changed today. As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, made clear, the attack on child poverty is not only about income and inequalities but about improving life chances. The Government are paying a lot of attention to other areas, such as education, and I shall concentrate the remainder of my remarks on that vitally important subject. If we are to increase life chances, education can provide that very important route out of poverty.
	Many of the initiatives undertaken—Sure Start, the numeracy and literacy hours and the new Connexions Service—are doing precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said; that is, they are trying to help those at the bottom end of the scale to get a better start, to get training behind them and to get into new jobs. The danger, however, is that, for all the rhetoric, some of the measures that have been taken will reinforce inequality rather than promote greater equality.
	I am particularly worried by the preference for performance indicators and the fact that schools are listed constantly in league tables. Those schools which have the greatest difficulties are inevitably at the bottom of the league tables, and that tends to reinforce their position.
	I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the problem of specialist schools. One thousand out of the total of 3,500 secondary schools designated as specialist schools are to receive an extra half a million pounds over four years when they are specialist schools. Half a million pounds for a secondary school is a lot of money. Those schools are, disproportionately, the higher achieving schools; they tend to be middle-class schools.
	Let us contrast the numbers of free school meals in the least achieving schools with those in specialist schools, or even in average schools. Of those in the least achieving schools, 44.8 per cent have free school meals—nearly half of them are classified as in poverty under free school meals—compared to 15.3 per cent in the average state school. Some 33.18 per cent of children in the least achieving schools have special educational needs, compared to 14.1 per cent in ordinary state schools.
	The problem with the specialist schools programme is that it involves a disproportionate number of middle-class schools. The schools that are not achieving are the ones that need the extra half a million pounds. We need positive discrimination in favour of the lower achieving schools rather than the other way round. I know that the Excellence in Cities programme is doing this, but it is only doing it in a small minority of schools in city areas. There are schools in rural areas that need this help.
	From these Benches we applaud the aims of the Labour Government in tackling poverty and supporting families. We congratulate them on what they have achieved to date, even if we feel that they have been lucky with their share of the upward trend in the economic cycle and that they have been too cautious in some of the measures they have pursued. We warn them, however, that they will need to be bolder in the pursuit of their targets. In particular, they cannot tackle poverty without also tackling inequality. Unless they are prepared to tackle inequalities in the factors contributing to long-term poverty—I have highlighted the inequalities in the education system but it applies equally to health and to housing—they will never achieve their ambition of abolishing child poverty within this country within this generation.

Lord Moser: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for introducing this important debate. The noble Lord and I have worked together on various statistical projects over many years. Therefore, I start by believing the kind of statistics that he uses, and I have confidence in them up to a point. The noble Lord has taken us to the heart of the problem.
	The very word "poverty" has many different uses. It is difficult at the present time to talk about poverty without at least a sidelong glance at poverty in its serious form in the developing countries. We cannot forget that half the world's population now lives on less than two dollars a day. Over a million live on less than one dollar a day. As President Clinton reminded us in his remarkable Dimbleby lecture, every day 1½ billion people do not have sight of a glass of clean water. That is poverty in its most abject form. Let none of us forget it. In this debate, however, we are talking about this important topic in a national context—in the context of a rich society.
	The noble Lord, Lord Layard, has brought us up to date. He rightly bases his analysis and conclusions on the official definition of poverty—usually referred to as "relative" poverty. It is quite different from what is normally referred to as "absolute" poverty, under which definition basic needs are valued and then translated against incomes. In a study of relative poverty, low incomes are compared with the general standard of living. On that basis, some 18 per cent of households and 23 per cent of children are below the poverty line. That is the background to the Government's aims to abolish child poverty within 20 years and to halve it within 10 years—seven or eight years from now.
	The noble Lord reminded us of the range of policies that are necessary to achieve those targets. Some, as he told us, bear on employment—getting poor people into work—and others on various tax and welfare schemes. Although the figures are not totally up to date, the indications are that the combination of the policies is beginning to bear fruit, with a significant effect on distribution and on inequalities. As a result, some 1.2 million children have been lifted out of poverty, thus defined. That is a fine achievement on the part of the Government. However, the challenge of a further two million to be lifted out of poverty remains.
	I want to put these material measures of poverty in the wider context and to comment on what they mean in terms of health, housing, education and life opportunities. It is notable, and cheering, that every speaker has emphasised the importance of education in the context of poverty. I wish to do the same. I declare my interest as chairman of the Basic Skills Agency—a remarkable organisation which has done key work over many years on literacy and numeracy.
	All children deserve a good education. Above all, they deserve the ability to read and write and to cope with numbers. Yet we have lived through decades when a substantial minority of children—some 15 per cent—have left school without these abilities. It is not surprising that they have been led down the road to low incomes, unemployment and social exclusion.
	The situation is becoming slightly better, especially in schools. A great deal has been done by the Government, largely through the Literacy Hour, so that now fewer and fewer children are leaving school unable to read and write. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, said that 70 per cent of 11 year-olds now have these basic abilities. That is a good figure, but I am more concerned about the remaining 30 per cent of children who still leave school with basic skills impaired as the figure should be nil.
	As regards adults, a recent report by a committee which I had the honour of chairing indicated that, in this rich country, between six million and seven million adults have poor functional literacy, resulting in major disadvantages to their lives. The links with poverty are all too obvious. Compared with a person with good normal literacy, someone with poor literacy is five times more likely to be unemployed; and, if employed, he or she is twice as likely to be in the lowest income bracket. I mention this simply to remind your Lordships of the importance in relation to poverty of the whole set of government policies on education—notably literacy and numeracy—as well as other social factors bearing on life opportunities.
	I want to make two further points. The first is statistical. It is most important that we all understand how poverty comes about—indeed how all inequalities come about—and the complex underlying causes, as well as the complex consequences of being in poverty. Much of this has been set out in the excellent work of the Social Exclusion Unit and by the Office for National Statistics.
	Secondly, I want to mention a statistical source of enormous importance; namely, longitudinal surveys. These are surveys in which the same people are asked questions over a number of years. This country has the best such surveys in the world. We have four sequences of surveys, the most recent beginning with the birth cohort last year. This is the ideal method of assessing life opportunities and the consequences, as well as the causes, of poverty.
	Finally, returning to policy, like other speakers I pay tribute to the Government for seeing poverty reduction as a central aim, and for their evident achievements so far. To focus on relative poverty, however, means that progress has to be judged in relation to overall rises in living standards. Therefore, it is important to know from Ministers, first, whether the plan is to continue to assess progress in tackling child poverty in the way in which it has been judged so far, applying the same measures; and secondly, whether, with only eight years to go, the Government's judgment is that this enormously ambitious target is still realistic and whether we are on track towards it.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for creating an opportunity for us to reflect on what has been achieved. I also pay tribute to him as one of the architects of some of the most imaginative strategies that have been put in place for employment, and which are making such a difference.
	My argument is that the Government have been radical. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hattersley, although possibly for different reasons, that they have not been redistributive. The Government have not made poor people richer by making rich people poorer. What they have done is to release resources and to direct resources to the poorest. And we are beginning to see the difference in what is happening to some of the poorest children in society.
	The debate provides an opportunity to ask ourselves what makes a radical and sound social policy as a whole. I suggest that there are a few defining criteria. One is to tackle the causes of poverty and to break the inter-generational cycle of worklessness, hopelessness and powerlessness in young people. The second is to create a coherent framework, so that policies that tackle poverty directly and indirectly can work together to have the most beneficial effect.
	The Government have begun to do both. That is the major difference that they have made. It is a cultural and political difference as much as a technical difference. That is what makes it radical. It has been cast in the European context and the language of social inclusion, which is relatively new in this country. That enables us to place the concept of raising incomes within a framework that demands that we deal with the relationship between poverty, health and education, as many noble Lords have already said.
	I agree that by setting a target of abolishing child poverty within 20 years, the Government have taken a mighty risk. They have raised the profile of tackling poverty beyond the obsession of a few highly dedicated and highly skilled campaigners to make it the natural target of everybody who cares about social justice and about how government works. It will be a task against which the Government are measured.
	It is fair to reflect on how far we have come on creating incentives for work as well as opportunities for work and on raising living standards in work. I shall take three examples of that process. We are moving towards an integrated tax and benefit system. A Bill will shortly come before your Lordships' House to introduce an integrated child tax credit system. That is a hugely challenging undertaking. It was discussed for decades, with endless academic papers and government initiatives on how it might be done, but it was never seriously countenanced because it was too difficult. We have begun that process.
	The minimum wage was the target of a lot of negative propaganda for years, but it is in place and is raising living standards. It is not raising them high enough or fast enough in my opinion, but it has introduced a new ethic to the workplace on what is payable and how well it is paid.
	We have also seen moves to tackle the poverty of that group of pensioners who for years were the largest and poorest group in poverty. Through the minimum income guarantee and now through the state pension credit scheme we have a genuine possibility of raising all poor pensioners out of poverty.
	It has been difficult to make a judgment about the cumulative effect of all the measures that have been put in place since 1997, because the statistics flow at a glacial rate. They are very suspect, not to say slippery, and one has to look at a number of different triangulated points to get a fix on them. There is a major time lag between policy and effect. I never thought that the Government would be accused of doing good by stealth, when they are so much more frequently accused of over-egging their achievements to the point of beginning not to be believed, but they have done a great deal of good by stealth.
	When making those judgments, it is not necessary to rely only on people who would say that, wouldn't they. Just before the election, the Child Poverty Action Group, which has been a critical friend to many governments—often more critic than friend—wrote:
	"There is no doubt that when the election takes place there will have been a substantial reduction in poverty, particularly child poverty, by any measure you care to use. This is a great achievement—partly the result of a buoyant economy with falling unemployment, but mainly the result of pursuing redistributive social and fiscal policies".
	We do not have the statistics that we would love to have to take us up to 2002, but we have a model drawn up by reputable academics, who have extrapolated data to estimate with confidence that 1.2 million children will have been lifted out of poverty. We have to say "Thank God", because, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, pointed out, by the middle of the 1990s, after 20 years of redistributive policies flowing in the other direction, Britain had the highest child poverty rate of any country in the European Union and one of the highest in the industrial world. Even after two years of a Labour Government, that situation appeared not to have shifted much.
	Significantly, in contrast with other governments, which had managed to use social policies to protect and improve the living standards of children, our governments had not done so. Children were poor not because of global economic trends, but because of the failure of policy makers. We have made a start on reversing that, tackling the causes of family poverty and making the right framework.
	As many noble Lords have pointed out, we have also tackled the inexorable link between the failure to thrive and the failure to learn. In that respect, I warmly welcome yesterday's Ofsted report and the statement that there has never been better teaching in this country, as well as the expansion of those initiatives that are directly targeted on the poorest children in the most disadvantaged areas. I hope that those initiatives will not be national projects, but will become national programmes. For too long, we have been a nation of projects and not a nation of sensible and sound policies. Those policies will address the real but diffident talents of children who do not think that they have a right to a place at university.
	At the same time, the Ofsted report rang loud warning bells about persistent and growing truancy, much of which is condoned by parents. That illustrates perfectly the difficulty of framing education policy outside family and social policy as a whole.
	Tempting though it is, there is no time for a debate on the links between educational failure and poverty. It is diagnosed beyond dispute, but some interesting recent research suggests that the impact of child poverty depends in some ways on the age of the child in poverty, but more certainly on the length of time that the child spends in poverty. As Robert Walker put it:
	"While poverty in childhood may not always be a significant problem, poverty throughout childhood most certainly is".
	If that is so, we need to look carefully at where and how we intervene to break the cycle of poverty and what instruments we choose to support families. Extending Sure Start and making extra and differential help available for families with primary and adolescent children are part of the answer.
	We may agree that economic and social policies are having the intended effect of lifting families out of poverty, but we must ask how far and how fast that is happening and at what point it will make a significant and permanent difference to families.
	The New Deal is achieving a lot on behalf of lone parents, who now make up such a significant proportion of society. We know that 122,000 lone parents had found work through the New Deal by last October. They need more accessible education and training and they need to know that, in due course, the childcare strategy will help to provide them with support not just for formal care but—as I hope—for the informal care that many of them have to draw on. Lone parents have to be very careful about where they put their children and whom they trust.
	To adapt a phrase, much has been done and much remains to be done. The noble Lord, Lord Layard, called for serious money and other noble Lords have called for serious thought. I call for serious action to sustain and maintain the momentum that I think we have established towards closing the gap. If we have coherent policies, we can have equality as well.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I have two comments at the outset. First, I thank my noble friend for introducing the debate. Secondly, in anticipation that there will be a lot of detail in many speeches and a lot of bandying of statistical information for and against what the Government have done, I have decided that in my short contribution I shall largely express what I consider to be conviction and motivation.
	When I decided to take part in this debate on tackling poverty and supporting families, I was reminded of a speech that I made on poverty a number of years ago, when I first came to the House. It was a speech that received, as expected, a mixed response. My noble friend Lord Puttnam—whom I did not know at the time, but who had entered the House at the same time as I did—passed me a note congratulating me on my speech and stating that he was glad to be reminded why he was sitting on these Benches.
	The noble Lord, Lord Renton, attacked my speech, describing it as "old Labour". That may very well happen again today. On that occasion, however, the late Lord Beloff disagreed with his noble friend and, commenting on my speech, said that someone had to speak up for the poor. I remember thinking that that statement was a little odd as I felt that speaking up for the poor was something that we should all be doing. However, on contemplating the matter further, I reflected on the fact that we are all to some extent products of our environment and that there may well be some who have never experienced poverty or under-privilege or even come close to such circumstances. Those people may feel that poverty arises from individual irresponsibility. They may think that laziness, drunkenness, neglect are but a few of the characteristics that lead to the poverty suffered by the wives and children of such men.
	I have no doubt that such cases exist. However, the truth is that poverty arising from such circumstances represents a small minority of those who have suffered the deprivation of poverty over the centuries. The indignity of poverty suffered by whole communities down the ages has clearly resulted from the operation of market forces and unfettered capitalism without the application of the measures needed to establish the necessary social justice. Although that description may seem harsh to some, it was not all that long ago that a leader of a party opposite coined the phrase "the unacceptable face of capitalism". Industrial change from the 19th century onwards has from time to time created widespread poverty, damaging both individual families and whole communities.
	With the historical development of this country, none of us can be surprised today at the way in which the trade unions mushroomed in the 19th century. It was not only the individually irresponsible or the unemployed who suffered poverty; millions of workers who worked long hours in hard and often dangerous jobs also suffered poverty. Yet at the same time a few were amassing vast fortunes.
	Is it any wonder that the Labour Party was born of the trade union movement, in the knowledge that if social justice and the eradication of poverty were to be achieved, political decisions would have to be taken? These values have been with the Labour Party since its inception and they are still part of Labour's mission today, 100 years later. Although the circumstances have changed, the values have not. They are as important to Labour today as they were a century ago.
	As we all know, just about halfway through the 20th century, a Labour government with a landslide victory were elected to form the government who laid the foundation stones of Labour's historical mission: to remove poverty and establish universal social justice. Regrettably, it took another 50 years for another Labour landslide. Last year, for the first time in Labour's history, a landslide was repeated in a subsequent election. This Government are determined to complete the job that the Attlee government started. The measures may be different, because circumstances are different, but the values are the same. For 18 long years, the Conservative Party had every opportunity to tackle poverty and support families. In my view, they failed. I shall not speculate now on whether they did not want to succeed, or whether they did not know how to succeed. However, in 1997, the electorate demonstrated their view. The British public made their decision. It was not the poor, the most disadvantaged or the most under-privileged who voted the Conservative government out of office; it was those who were well off or reasonably well off and those who were relatively comfortable. It was those who were ashamed at what was happening to this country and to large numbers of people living in it, reflected in slogans such as, "Get on your bike" and, "There's no such thing as society".
	It is clear to me that, since 1997, this Labour Government have been introducing measures that are consistent with their core values: to remove poverty and to establish social justice by focusing on support for people—individual men, women and children—and collectively focusing on families.
	I know that, in his reply, my noble friend Lord McIntosh will where necessary emphasise once again the Government's record—particularly on bringing more people into work, providing minimum levels of income and improving benefits for pensioners and benefits for families. I shall therefore not go into those details, which have already been clearly expressed by my noble friend Lord Layard in introducing this debate.
	I should, however, like to say how much I welcome the action of both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on world poverty. In the developing world, poverty is very often caused by famine, drought, disease and other natural disasters, as well as by exploitation and abuse. Such poverty is far worse than anything that we experience. Whatever its cause, however, that poverty very soon becomes the breeding ground for fanatical terrorists. I therefore warmly welcome the Prime Minister's proposed tour of Africa, and I warmly welcome the Chancellor's attempts to establish a world-wide, funded coalition to attack world-wide poverty.
	Last Sunday, at the church I attend, during his sermon, the minister quoted Martin Luther King, saying:
	"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
	In the context of this debate, I say that poverty anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere. If 11th September 2001 has not taught us that lesson, it has taught us nothing.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, poverty and its attendant ills ought always to be a matter of concern to us all. I agree with very much of what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, has just said—perhaps pausing only very briefly to remind him, in the most gentle possible way, that Lord Beaverbrook was a Liberal—

Noble Lords: Lord Beveridge.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I meant of course to say that Lord Beveridge was a Liberal; Lord Beaverbrook is certainly not the right Peer in this context.
	Often in the House, the argument revolves around details of a Bill and how they impact on different groups. Today, thanks to this debate, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Layard, we can take a broader view of this terrible social ill. I shall talk about lone parents, most of whom are women, and about their children. Lone parents have now overtaken pensioners as the poorest members of society. The fact is that 61 per cent—two-thirds—of people in one-parent families live in relative poverty. In other words, three million people, including 1.9 million children, are living below the official poverty level, compared with 442,000 in 1979. Put differently, one-parent families make up 21 per cent of those in poverty, although they comprise only 9 per cent of those in society.
	There has been much argument recently about the emotional and social impact upon children caused by single parenthood. I do not propose to enter into that argument except to point out that, on the one hand, family breakdown is the single greatest predictor of offending behaviour, but that, on the other hand, analysis seems to indicate that it is poverty and the burden that it imposes upon the single parent that really does the damage to children. Three fifths of children in lone-parent families are poor, compared with one in four where couples are together.
	According to the National Council for One Parent Families, the poorest fifth of the population has seen no real increase in spending on children's clothes, shoes, toys and important dietary items such as fruit in 30 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, gave a vivid impression of the wider impact of poverty on those who suffer from it.
	The cause of poverty for those families is the loss of a partner. It is worth mentioning that most lone parents have been in partnerships. An aggravating cause is the fact that most lone parents are women. It is an acknowledged and documented fact that women still earn less than men, even in comparable jobs, and that they are disproportionately concentrated in lower paid work. That is even more the case when we talk about women with sole charge of children. They must try to find work locally. Only 30 per cent of them have access to a car and running a car is expensive. They need flexible working hours to fit in with children's school hours and holidays. Some 90 per cent of them want to work, but, interestingly, fewer lone mothers than mothers in couples actually do so. Obviously, the burden of managing the work/life balance is particularly acute for these lone mothers.
	One-third of lone parents, and 44 per cent of those not in work, have no academic qualifications. Many noble Lords have referred to the importance of education in that situation. There is also the difficulty of suitable training opportunites, and the recent government initiative to deal with that problem by allowing lone parents to train on income supplement is therefore most welcome.
	When the Government first started their drive to encourage lone mothers to work, the manipulation of benefits to encourage them to do so appeared likely to disbenefit large numbers of mothers and, therefore, their children. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and others pointed out, the increase in benefits targeted towards children has been a welcome change. The increased child element of working families' tax credit, the increase in child benefit itself and the ability to receive maintenance while also receiving working families' tax credit have been a great help. Unfortunately, the latter point will help only the one-third of lone parents who actually receive child maintenance.
	Although the results have not yet shown up in the statistics, as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said, modelling of the effect of these changes suggests that about half a million children in lone parent families will be lifted out of poverty—part of a total of 1 to 1.5 million children. That is something upon which the Government are to be congratulated, as no doubt they will be if the figures turn out as expected.
	Unfortunately, that is not the end of the matter. To move into greater security, lone mothers need better jobs and to get and hold them they need above all affordable, flexible and reliable child care. It is not an accident that only 51 per cent of lone mothers are in work in this country compared with 70 per cent of mothers who are in couples. The figures for lone mothers in work in France and Sweden are 80 and 70 per cent respectively. The problem is lack of child care. If you have no one with whom you can share child care, you need affordable child care provided by someone else. Child care at a recently reported average cost of £6,000 per annum will not do for the parents about whom I am speaking. What can the Government tell us that will encourage us to feel that locally based, affordable and flexible quality child care is a major part of their programme of poverty reduction? Do they recognise that neighbourhood nurseries could also have a positive effect in terms of community building?
	I turn briefly to the subject of the treatment of mothers and expectant mothers by some employers, particularly smaller employers in lower grade occupations. The CAB, responding to the Government Green Paper, Work and Parents, pointed to a gap in that paper's approach to improving and simplifying maternity benefits. Every year the CAB handles about 700,000 employment inquiries, of which tens of thousands are related to maternity or parental rights. Women are being penalised for visiting their doctor during pregnancy. They are even being sacked because they are pregnant—a case was reported this very day—and they are being refused the ability to return to work.
	I was reminded by my noble friend Lord Russell, who will speak later, that in reply to my Starred Question last week the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, suggested that British people might have no need of the option of an appeal to the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women. However, I am talking about existing rights which are being flouted and ignored by employers. I agree with the CAB that as well as extending maternity and paternity benefits, the Government should take steps to monitor the application and implementation of those that exist. My final question, therefore, to the Minister is to ask whether the Government have taken that point of view on board and whether they will do anything about it.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Layard, on introducing the debate. This is an important matter and it is high time that it is addressed in a debate of this kind.
	It also gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, as I substantially agree with what she said. I refer to the extraordinary difference in statistics as regards the UK and the EU on the matter of single mothers. The number of single mothers in Britain is miles above that of any other country in Europe and twice the European average. Those statistics constitute social problems in a rather pure form in some respects but they have major economic consequences.
	The raw data have been described in a number of ways, but I do not think that the data I shall discuss have been mentioned. I refer to an article in the April 2001 edition of Economic Trends issued by the Office for National Statistics entitled, The effects of taxes and benefits on household income, 1999-2000. The article states:
	"Before government intervention, the top fifth of households have an average of £54,400 per year in original income (that is from sources such as earnings, occupational pensions and investments). This is around 19 times as great—"
	I am not just talking about David Beckham, but the top fifth of households—
	"as the figure of £2,800 for the bottom fifth. However, after taxes and benefits, the ratio is greatly reduced to four to one".
	Of course, a tremendous amount of work is carried out by staff through the tax and benefits system to reduce that ratio considerably. They undertake a huge task to arrive at a situation which most people may consider is not a million miles away from a relatively satisfactory distribution, although many of us would like to see bigger strides made towards greater equality. I repeat that before government intervention the figure of original income for the top fifth of households is 19 times as great as that of the bottom fifth. That increase grew exponentially in the Thatcher years of 1980-1990. We now have to climb a mountain to get back to the income distribution, the GINI coefficient, that pertained at the start of that period.
	The official Economic Trends states,
	"Inequality of disposable income was fairly stable in the first half of the 1980s. This was followed by a period where it increased rapidly, reaching a peak around 1990. Inequality then fell slightly in the first half of the 1990s, although the fall only reversed a small part of the rise seen in the previous decade. However, the latest figures show that inequality of disposable income rose again in the late 1990s".
	As my noble friend Lord Layard mentioned at the start of this debate, that information is probably out of date. One must give credit where credit is due for the enormous amount of work done by the Government and the Chancellor in particular.
	Perhaps I may mention a couple of statistics. There are 1.2 million fewer children in relative poverty now than in 1997. On average, families with children are £1,000 a year better off in real terms. Families with children in the poorest fifth of the population are on average £1,700 a year better off in real terms. A family with two young children with half average earnings (£12,700) is £3,000 a year better off in real terms. By April 2002, pensioner households will be £840 a year better off on average with the poorest pensioner households being £1,000 a year better off in real terms since 1997. One could continue with other major statistics and commitments for the future such as maternity provision, parental leave and so forth.
	I now wish to look at some of the fundamental questions from my perspective on these matters. I have taken it as axiomatic, as many speakers have done, that poverty is part of the bigger problem of inequality. The issue of public expenditure and public services all come into the question in a world of advancing globalisation. My position on the issue goes back to the three years I spent on the Royal Commission on the distribution of income and wealth in the late 1970s under the very distinguished chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Diamond.
	At that time we made one of the important breakthroughs on the question of family poverty, which was the "wallet to the purse" provision. Noble Lords may recall that we in the trade union movement agreed, with some major difficulty, to a big transfer of money from the wallet to the purse and a large expansion in the role of child benefit. There have been many important moves under the present Government to extend some of that thinking to the working families' tax credit, pensioner credit and so forth.
	But we cannot tackle poverty in isolation from the great changes in society both at home and abroad. The question of single mothers has been mentioned. But we have to look at inequality per se because poverty of esteem always follows inequality. It is not just a question of having absolute increases. We need a background social philosophy in which we can address the problem. I would include as an important part of discussions the European social model. Jacques Delors got it absolutely right. He said that the problems of atypical, marginalised workers, fixed and short-term contract workers, part-time workers and other issues such as maternity leave and parental leave were central to dealing with poverty.
	The social policy questions are linked with those of the labour market. All the self-serving propaganda against these measures by the Institute of Directors et al is proving to be grossly overstated. Indeed, many employers now admit that the challenge of giving proper mainstream terms of employment, which I call quality terms of employment, to many atypical workers is a big incentive for them to undergo training and improve the value added, in order to justify the outlay on the minimum wage and other benefits.
	I now turn to the philosophy to which the noble Lord, Lord Moser, alluded. It is reasonable to have a relative concept of poverty. There is the idea that it is ridiculous to say that one is poor because one does not have a washing machine or motorcar. Nobody had them 100 years ago. Even the upper and upper-middle classes did not have such things 100 years ago. We now say that to be deprived of something which others have is a way of considering poverty. So the relative concept of poverty must be accepted side by side with the absolute level of poverty.
	Finally, it would be useful if the Minister were to say a little more about mobility. It is very important although we must not caricature the situation by saying that this generation's poorest can be the next generation's plutocrats. A very important study by the Cabinet Office indicates that there are many barriers to income mobility. We have heard about that as regards the education system. In the professions the phrase is "hoarding opportunities". In the debate about inheritance tax there is an argument for the redistribution of income through increasing income tax and inheritance tax. I do not believe that that would be universally popular, but we have to look at what obstructs people from changing their position as regards wealth distribution.

Lord Paul: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Layard on introducing this debate. One of the reasons that I, along with many others on these Benches, joined the Labour Party was in the interest of social justice and what needs to be done to tackle poverty and to support families. So I am proud to rise this afternoon to speak about the advances this Government have made during the past five years in strengthening British families and combating the blight of poverty, both at home and abroad.
	In 1997, when Labour took office, United Kingdom unemployment was widespread and the level of child poverty was high. Homelessness was growing at an alarming rate, as was the gap between rich and poor pensioners. These problems were unfolding against a backdrop of global poverty that was being left largely unattended.
	Between 1997 and 2002, Labour has not only slowed these damaging trends, but reversed them. Over one million new jobs have been created, helping employment to rise to record levels. Long-term unemployment among young people has fallen by 75 per cent, 1.2 million children have been lifted out of poverty, and the families supporting them have been given the smallest direct tax burden since 1972.
	On the world stage, the Government are taking great strides to fight global poverty, committing much more of their resources to foreign aid and ensuring that the world's most heavily indebted nations are not punished for the aid they are given.
	Along these lines the Labour Government have cancelled the debt owed to Britain by 42 troubled countries and have pledged to halve the number of people living in extreme poverty by the year 2015. Here I congratulate my friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the work that he is doing towards that.
	Homelessness—Britain's most visible manifestation of poverty—has been alleviated in the past five years through a series of sensible measures that include the Rough Sleepers Unit, which has reduced the number of people sleeping on the streets by about 30 per cent in the past three years. There are new laws to ensure that councils will accommodate homeless persons until suitable long-term housing becomes available.
	As president of Family Service Units, I have paid special attention to the ways in which the Government have sought to improve the lives of Britain's children, especially the many children living in poverty. I am proud, then, that we have raised child benefit for the first child by more than 25 per cent since 1997 and have made the children's tax credit worth up to £520 per year. Both changes dramatically improve the quality of life for children.
	I also commend the Government on introducing SureStart, their programme to ensure that infants in the most under-privileged areas get a good start in life, and on their extension of the disability living allowance to three and four year-olds, which will go a long way towards providing improved care for disabled children.
	After all, it is families that need the most support if we are to prevent child poverty and cycles of youth unemployment. In 1997, Labour pledged to advance policies that would build strong families and strong communities. And I am happy to report that it has done just that, through introducing such policy measures as the working families tax credit, parental leave and extended maternity leave. That is a powerful show of support for Britain's families.
	Our minimum income guarantee has made the poorest pensioners at least £15 better off than they were in 1997. Over the past five years, our commitment to combating poverty has not ceased at our borders. As I mentioned, Labour has reversed the trend of shrinking foreign aid and has extended debt relief to dozens of heavily indebted countries. Our foreign aid is being used to support education in developing countries and to improve healthcare for the poor, specifically in the fight against HIV and AIDS. In addition to increasing aid for developing nations, the Government have increased government involvement in international development through the creation of the Department for International Development. I congratulate the Secretary of State for International Development.
	But, no matter what has been achieved so far in eradicating poverty and raising the quality of life for families, there is still a lot to do. We must push for further initiatives at home, such as the pension credit for pensioners who want to save money and the neighbourhood renewal action plan for deprived communities that want to pull themselves out of decline. And we must continue to couple our goals for fighting poverty at home with the desire to fight poverty across the globe. As the Prime Minister said only this week,
	"you can no longer divorce foreign policy from domestic policy".
	We must craft our anti-poverty and pro-family measures with a view towards their global applications.
	Truly, we cannot claim to be working for families if we work towards the improvement of only our own family and not our neighbours. Likewise, we cannot claim to be fighting poverty if we are fighting only our own nation's poverty and not the poverty of our neighbouring nations. I commend the Prime Minister on taking the trip to Africa tonight and I wish him all success.
	Labour has made a good start and set us on the path toward lasting progress. Let us make sure that we do not impede that progress and that we work to extend it to more communities within Britain and to more of the global community.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for this opportunity to celebrate the Government's achievements over the past five years in supporting families and tackling poverty. I shall concentrate on what more can be done rather than on what has already been achieved. I should be grateful if the Minister would be good enough to read my speech in Hansard of 19th December, at col. 256, in which I took trouble to describe at length the great achievements that have been made.
	I should like to concentrate on the importance of a child-centred approach to child poverty and to the association between poverty, family dysfunction, prison and the care system. In the Government's drive to combat child poverty, I am concerned that we should not overlook the needs of the child. During the past 18 months I have been attending seminars at the Anna Freud Centre, which is a centre of excellence for child psychotherapy and the psychotherapy of parents. It was established by Anna Freud at the end of the Second World War for refugee children. I have been trying to understand the rudiments of child development. The more I learn, the more aware of my ignorance I become. But one thing is clear: the relationship between an infant and his primary carer is most important. Ideally, the primary carer should be available to give his or her attention—individual and undivided—to the needs of the infant in the first two or three years of life.
	I believe that although the Government are well aware of that need of the very young child, they are determined to encourage as many parents as possible to work. That is the best way to relieve child poverty, as demonstrated in Scandinavia and other countries. Their tax reforms in that area have lifted many children out of poverty. However, do we really want to encourage the lone parent of, for example, a four month-old baby to leave her child in inadequate child care so that she—most probably, the person will be a "she"—can work to provide an adequate income for herself and her child? Surely, with such a young child, she should feel that she has an adequate income to sustain herself and her child if she chooses to work at home caring for her infant.
	I understand that in Norway there are substantial financial incentives for a parent to work at home caring for his or her child until that child reaches the age of three. On the Continent—this is a very important point—it is very much less the practice that the primary carer of a very young child goes out to work.
	Is there not a danger of our perpetuating our culture of child neglect—albeit inadvertently—in this area? Today, the National Childcare Trust announced that our child care costs are the highest in Europe. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, drew attention to that. The cost of child care provision has risen by 10 per cent during the past year. Demand for places is exceeding supply.
	Barnardo's reports that last year there were 42,000 free or subsidised child care places for under 3 year-olds. In 1999, there were 600,000 children in poverty. While SureStart and other initiatives are indeed most welcome, even when they are taken into account there will still be a large gap to fill, according to Barnardo's.
	Does it makes sense in those circumstances not to balance incentives for all parents to return to work with incentives for the primary carer of very young children to work at home caring for his or her child if that is the parent's choice? At the very least, they should surely be able to afford to make that choice, and the income support scale rate—or whatever now replaces it—should be set at such a rate as to enable them to do so.
	Could more be done to enable mothers of young children to work part-time when they so wish? I know that there have been improvements in that area; that matter too was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. Perhaps the Minister can indicate whether he will take up these concerns with those of his colleagues with responsibilities in the area of child poverty and family support.
	I turn to my concerns with regard to the association between poverty, family dysfunction, the prison system and the care system. According to my information, 32 per cent of young offenders have been in care. The percentage of fathers under 21 who are in prison is 25 per cent, which is far above the national average. While researching for the Adoption and Children Bill, I learnt that most children being taken into the care system, and most of the 2,000 or so adopted each year, come from families in poverty. Further, it is often the case that these children's parents have been in care; indeed, often those parents had parents who were put in care.
	Again, rates of pregnancy in teenagers who are, or have been, in care are far higher than the deplorable, but happily decreasing, national average. It appears to me that there is a nexus of deprivation within the group of those who have been in care, in prison and in poverty. The Government have been giving welcome attention to this area but, as they admit, there is still a long way to go. For example, information accompanying the launch of the report by the Prison Reform Trust and the Federation of Prisoners' Family Support Group into prison visitors' centres published last week suggests that the number of prison visits has declined by one-third since 1997; yet prison numbers have soared. We have the second highest imprisonment rate in Europe.
	Moreover, of member states of the Council of Europe, only Romania, Estonia and Lithuania have higher rates of imprisonment than England for those under the age of 21. About one-third of these will have been through the care system; 25 per cent of them are fathers. Family breakdown and inadequate corporate parenting may be an important factor in their incarceration. What more could the Government do to address this nexus, and break the cycle of family dysfunction and poverty of this group? They could make a positive response to the suggestions in the Just Visiting report, the review of the role of prison visitor centres.
	In particular, the Government could do even more to encourage the many young fathers in prison to have regular contact with their children. For example, I am told that many teenage girls arrive at Feltham Young Offenders' Institution during visiting hours. Much more could be done to make such visits attractive to these young girls and to introduce parenting support during those visits to their partners. They could ensure that the Quality Protects Initiative is made a permanent part of the care system. Further, as Professor Sonia Jackson, the authority on education for children in care, suggests, they could ensure that our system of care becomes more similar to that on the Continent. The professor would especially like to see an immediate injection of large numbers of graduates into the residential social work profession, with a clear career path made available for them, as well as a raising of the educational attainment as regards foster parents.
	I see that my speaking time has run out. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply. I apologise, again, for not taking more time to praise the many important achievements of this Government.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, why should the Government tackle poverty and support families? Is it a matter of economics, or is it a matter of morality? My noble friend Lord Layard is an eminent economist and I think that he has demonstrated that it is actually a matter of both. I congratulate him on moving the Motion. I join my noble friend Lady Andrews in congratulating him on researching and stimulating government action on poverty.
	I agree with my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, that tackling poverty means tackling inequality. This is what this debate is all about. A belief in equality is the boundary that separates the political left from the political right. Perhaps that explains why there is relative lack of interest on the Tory Benches opposite in this debate—apart, that is, from the honourable exception of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I know that it is something that is done but, to be honest, when it is a debate on agriculture, it is not something that I do. Some people have a greater interest in one topic than they do in another. There are two of us on these Benches this afternoon, and there are three Liberal Democrats in the Chamber. I believe that there was a great empty Bench behind the Minister on the previous agricultural debate.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on participating in this debate.
	We on the left—the old left and the new left—do not seek uniform equality of outcome. Our aim is rather to create social conditions that give very different individuals an equal chance for a full and flourishing life. So the economic and moral case for tackling poverty stems from our belief in equality. A belief in equal worth—equal worth not only between the rich and the poor but also between men and women. This belief in equality between men and women is one reason why I welcome the Government's support for families. The new deal for young people, for the long-term unemployed, for lone parents, and for the over-50s is rooted in this belief. So is the national minimum wage.
	Since 1997, the Government have increased child benefit, introduced the children's tax credit, and the working families' tax credit and raised children's allowances in income support. Those initiatives are all rooted in support for equality. That is only right. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas. If there is no support for the family, it is women who become less equal than men. The benefits of all this are not difficult to find. They relate to breaking the cycle of disadvantage about which the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Moser, spoke.
	In traditional societies every person born has an allotted place in society. All this does is pass poverty and inequalities from one generation to the next. There is much research that charts this course. My noble friend Lord Layard told us that working-class children do worse at school than do middle-class children. The death rate from coronary heart disease is three times higher among unskilled men than among professional men. Other speakers have explained that the sons and daughters of high earners are far more likely to become high earners themselves than the children of parents on low incomes. This is what I mean by the "cycle of disadvantage".
	All this was forcefully brought home to me by some research carried out by academics John Bynner and Heather Joshey. Their extensive work was based on two longitudinal surveys mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moser: 16,000 people born in single weeks in 1958 and in 1970 were tracked throughout their lives. The research analysed the obstacles and opportunities affecting those people. One of the most striking revelations to emerge from that work confirms the extent to which child poverty haunts people through their lives. The children of parents on low incomes performed worse at school. Children whose parents had the same occupational level and the same educational background still did significantly worse on average if they had financial problems than if they did not. That is why the government policy to raise the income of families with children is so important—not only does it tackle inequality and poverty, it also breaks the cycle of disadvantage.
	The research also demonstrated very clearly that, as well as income, there is another very important element in tackling poverty; namely, education. That point has been made by nearly all noble Lords who have spoken today. The research showed that educational achievement is now the single most important factor in determining later success. Those who do well at school early tend to finish with good qualifications, and those who gain good qualifications do much better in the labour market later on. According to the research, men with no qualifications were 12 times more likely to be out of work by the age of 26 than those with qualifications. Indeed, the research showed that in some areas the detrimental effect of inequality of opportunity is growing stronger and more debilitating.
	That point is illustrated, in particular, in the findings on teenage pregnancy. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, spoke of that. The research showed that the relative risk of a girl from an unskilled family compared with a professional family becoming a teenage mother almost doubled between the 1958 and the 1970 cohorts. Daughters born in 1970 whose fathers were unskilled were an astonishing nine times more likely to become teenage mothers than girls whose fathers were more highly qualified.
	Much of this is not new. Previous governments and social reformers have all been aware of it. Indeed, people can argue that, in fact, it does not matter because we are all better off today as income and living standards rise across the board. I do not agree. There is still a large gap. My noble friend Lord Lea and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, spoke of that. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp: that gap matters.
	Raising the income of families through employment, education, childcare and the tax and benefit system helps to close the gap. I agree with my noble friend Lord Paul that education increases the opportunities for children growing up on a low income and, together with programmes such as Sure Start, gives them an important advantage. It also helps to close the gap. Closing the gap by tackling poverty and supporting the family has an enormous moral and economic pay-off. That pay-off is breaking the cycle of disadvantage. If we do nothing about it, it will span the generations.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Layard, for introducing this extremely important debate. I say at the outset that I agree entirely with everything that he said about the proportion of support which must go to children. In the reference in his Motion to supporting families, I congratulate him on avoiding the definite article, to which I am allergic.
	The definition of a family is, of course, a matter of discussion. I want to recommend to the noble Lord and to the Government a phrase from St Augustine:
	"An assemblage of reasonable beings united by a common agreement as to the object of their love".
	That was, in fact, St Augustine's definition of the state, but it seems to me that it serves equally well as a definition of a family.
	I want also to thank the noble Lord for his kindness in making available to me and for discussing with me off-prints of a number of his articles. I do not believe that it will surprise him greatly that I do not entirely agree with them. That happens among academics and I believe that we are quite used to it. But I am well aware—I have read enough criticism of my own work to know it very well—that, in criticising work a little outside one's field, one may misrepresent it. If I do so, even in a timed debate, I shall willingly give way to the noble Lord.
	My noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford pointed out that the Government have been applying these measures in an exceptionally benign economic climate. It is not easy to disentangle the effect of the Government's policies from the effect of the economic climate. The question must be asked: how high could unemployment go without exceeding the budget which the Government have set for the New Deal?
	I must admit that in relation to the Government's measures I am very much of a sceptic. I believe that they rest largely on a mistaken diagnosis. I consider that they are misapplied in practice and that they consistently miss major problems to which they should be paying attention.
	The theoretical part is, first and foremost, the work of the noble Lord, Lord Layard. He sees a clear link between the length of time for which unemployment benefit is payable and the length of time for which people remain unemployed. These are his exact words:
	"The longer unemployment benefits are available the longer unemployment lasts".
	He believes that it must follow that the basic problem is making people want to work. That is not merely an economic problem.
	Once, when I had a sabbatical term just after I had finished a book instead of just before, my wife and I switched jobs full-time and I became the sole full-time carer for our one year-old. I do not know what it did for his education; I know that it did wonders for mine. The desire for employment is as much social as economic, and economic factors alone are not enough to bring about that desire.
	The noble Lord suggests that if we have a large pool of unemployed people who remain unemployed because they have generous benefit levels, that may explain why unemployment remains at a high level. But there are other explanations: there are other rigidities in the labour market; the jobs are in one place and the people are in another; and there is the question of transport.
	Incidentally, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, made an important series of points. On the previous occasion that we debated poverty, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans drew attention to a single parent who was spending 10 per cent of her weekly benefit on fares in going to collect the benefit. That is a 10 per cent cut in benefit. Such matters are serious, as are age discrimination, dismissal because of pregnancy and the areas which are like the rock pools where the tide has not come back after the recession. The post office closes; the school closes; the bank closes; and the shop closes. In the Question relating to the Post Office, I would have asked, if I had had the opportunity, whether the Government have made an estimate of the effects of post office closures on the increase in poverty and unemployment. If they have, are they prepared to share that estimate with the House?
	The noble Lord also suggests that if, through the welfare-to-work programme, we help the most unemployable people back into work, that will generate additional jobs. I was intending to read the passage in which he argued that point—it appears on page 26 of his OECD essay—but I do not believe that time will allow that. Therefore, I say only that, in my opinion, it rests on a considerable number of hypotheses. If the noble Lord has evidence to justify any of those, I look forward to hearing it when he replies.
	The execution of the policy also leaves something to be desired. Of course, the measure of success rests unduly on the claimant count. If people are taken out of the claimant count during the time that they spend in the welfare-to-work programme, that automatically reduces the number of people who are long-term unemployed without there being any change. If one looks at the labour force survey, the reduction, although it genuinely exists, is a great deal smaller, and that should be borne in mind.
	If one looks at the reaction of those who participate in these schemes, it suggests that they are not entirely satisfied with the quality. Forty per cent of those who left the 18-to-24 scheme did so for what was not sustained employment. "Sustained employment" is defined as lasting for 13 weeks—that is not a particularly great achievement. In December 2000, 32 per cent of those who left the New Deal for under-25s left for no known destination. If a note is now on its way to the Minister to say that that is an old figure, I say, we know that; we have tried to update it. The figures are no longer collected, and that does not encourage me to believe that they have improved.
	With regard to the full-time employment and training option, the completion rates leave a lot to be desired. They are 6.6 per cent of starters and 10.9 per cent of leavers. The figures in relation to Oldham illustrate the point about areas where the tide has not returned. In Oldham the completion figures are 1.4 per cent of starters and 2.5 per cent of leavers. I grant that that is better than nothing, but it is not particularly good. The execution leaves much to be desired. As my honourable friend Mr Webb pointed out on the day that the Government's poverty strategy was announced, it rests heavily on creaming off from the top of the poor and not nearly enough attention is paid to those in deep poverty.
	The noble Lord, Lord Moser, dealt with the concept of absolute poverty. I grant that it is rare in this country, but the last crisis survey of the street homeless in London showed that there were 347 deaths on the streets in one year. I would not be surprised if none of those people was in absolute poverty. It is in fact very easy to disappear from statistics. Today Ofsted reports that 10,000 should-be schoolchildren have simply disappeared from the figures.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Layard, when he said that being disconnected for a long time from the world of work makes it much harder for one to return to work. But long-term sickness and crime also make it harder to return to work. In the context of crime, the Home Secretary would do well if he reversed the previous government's changes to housing benefits for prisoners.
	It appears to me that a Government who impose sanctions without having the least idea of what their effect is are in no position to make a comparison between the extent to which long-term unemployment takes people out of the world of work and the extent to which benefit sanctions take people out of the world of work. I do not know what might be the answer to that comparison—nor do I have the figures—but not to have attempted it is in my opinion not only a political crime but also an academic one.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I join all noble Lords who have congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Layard, on introducing what has been a fine debate. It has differed from the debate held in December, which was primarily concerned with child poverty, in several respects. On that occasion a number of noble Lords referred to the situation in a global context. In today's debate that has been mentioned only briefly, although the noble Lords, Lord Moser, Lord Davies of Coity and Lord Paul, referred to the problem of international poverty. It is important that we put the situation in our own country into that context. By and large today we have been talking about relative poverty rather than absolute poverty—apart from the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
	I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Layard, when he introduced the debate. He made some important points about the share of national income that goes to children. He and my noble friend Lady Byford referred to housing benefit. I was puzzled by what the noble Lord said in his introductory remarks. He appeared to argue for integrating housing benefit with other benefits. Those two kinds of benefits are distributed in different ways: housing benefit is distributed through local authorities and other benefits are distributed from the centre. Perhaps in his closing remarks he will seek to enlighten me as to how he believes that that can be brought about. It is an important point.
	Clearly, we have established that we should distinguish between the absolute level of poverty and the relative level. In that context the noble Lord, Lord Moser, in particular, but also other noble Lords, referred to the Government's aim of abolishing child poverty in 20 years and halving it in 10. The noble Lord, Lord Moser, pointed out that in that regard time is running out. We are already into the 10-year period. The problem is that it is a moving target. As the standard of living in the country rises, the target in relation to relative poverty becomes more difficult to achieve. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on that important issue.
	As has been rightly pointed out, in talking of reducing relative poverty to some extent we are talking about equality rather than poverty. In that respect there was some division on the Benches opposite—and perhaps around the House in general—between new Labour and old Labour. Some noble Baronesses and others placed more emphasis on equality rather than on the removal of poverty. There is much confusion about the Government's, indeed the Prime Minister's position. The Prime Minister appears to be more concerned with raising the absolute level of income at the bottom end of the scale regardless of whether it is raised at the top whereas the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions appears to be concentrating more on the issue of equality. Perhaps the Minister will elaborate.
	I want to pay particular attention to the issue of whether 1.2 million children were taken out of poverty during the previous Parliament. As I pointed out in the debate in December, that figure has a strange provenance. Two quite separate analyses produced that figure: one was a PolyMod study and the other was the Government's figure. Both produced a figure of 1.2 million, albeit on totally different bases which is perhaps a little curious.
	The Government's last manifesto stated that over one million children have been taken out of poverty. A number of noble Lords referred to that as an achievement, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Paul. I have always thought that myth has a great role to play in politics. If one can establish a good political myth, it will indeed be a powerful weapon. That figure is something of a myth. Not even the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that that is the figure because in December what appeared to be a clear-cut undertaking of taking one million children out of poverty turned out not to be quite what everyone had supposed. One would have thought that if one took the figure of the number of children in poverty at the beginning of the Government's time in office and reduced it by one million you would end up with a fairly clear-cut figure. In fact, you do not end up with that figure. It turns out that the latest Treasury report states that there are,
	"1.2 million children fewer in poverty than there would otherwise have been".
	So one cannot simply subtract the figure of one million and end up with the figure that one would suppose. That is an important point. I ask the Minister what the Government's target is now in relation to that.
	A number of noble Lords referred to the various points raised by the Government in introducing one benefit or another, but as those who debated the State Pension Credit Bill last week, and no doubt those who will debate it again next week, have stressed, that has meant an enormous increase in means testing. With the Chancellor of the Exchequer's passion for credits of every conceivable kind, enormously increased complexity is being introduced in the various measures. In other debates on work and pensions I have taken the view that possibly only the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who regrettably is not in her place today, understands such matters. It may be that the Minister who is to wind up does too. If so, I suspect that they are the only people in the country who do.
	That is not a trivial point. There are real problems regarding the complexity of the introduced measures and of take-up. The Government keep announcing more and more increases in the amount they are going to spend on a particular benefit. It is then found that actually far less is spent because of the lack of take-up. That is a very real problem. We need to take it into account in appraising the extent to which the Government's policies are actually working.
	There are a number of other aspects which have not been mentioned in this debate. There is the problem of the Social Fund. The Select Committee on Social Security in another place suggested that, because of the way benefits are claimed that would actually work very much against the Government's aim of reducing poverty and social exclusion.
	As to the number of workless households, the trend is not in the favourable direction that one would have hoped. I am relying there on the Office for National Statistics. After the "fiasco"—I think I might reasonably so describe it—regarding its views on how much money there is in pension funds at the present time, perhaps one must increasingly take its figures with a degree of scepticism.
	Overall, this has been an extremely helpful debate. One must take into account the Government's proposals when they first came into office in 1997. That is the date selected by the noble Lord for the purposes of this debate. The Prime Minister clearly stated that, by the end of a five-year term of a Labour government,
	"I vow that we will have reduced the proportion of national income we spend on the welfare bill of social failure",
	and so on. In reality the way that the Government have proceeded has led to a significant increase. The extent of social security, as it used to be called—work and pensions, I regret to say, it is now called—has actually increased. It has gone up from something like £100 billion to something like £110 billion. That is not exactly the kind of reduction promised in 1997. Of course one welcomes, as I have, the State Pension Credit Bill. That will help various pensioners and others. The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, and others have taken the view that one would do better to go for an increase in the basic state pension. I do not take that view myself, although many noble Lords on the Benches opposite may. It might have been a different way of tackling the problem.
	The complexity issue is very real. If we are going—as we must all wish—to try and reduce the level of poverty and to help the position of families, it is right that we should look at the detail of the various measures concerned and to put the matter in a broader context, as we have today. That was most helpful. We must congratulate the noble Lord for initiating the debate.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am proud of many things that this Government have done. I pause to anticipate the interjection—"He would say that, wouldn't he?" I am proud of the fact that we have a strong, stable and growing economy, of our active participation in Europe and of the increased money that we have made available to tackle world poverty. I am proud of the reduction in unemployment, of improvements in educational standards, particularly in primary schools, of the increased investment and staffing in the National Health Service, of action against oppression and terrorism in Kosovo and Afghanistan. But what I am most proud of, and what makes me most happy to be a member of this Government, is our policies, our strategies and the way in which they are working against poverty and in support of families.
	We had a debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and other noble Lords have reminded us, about child poverty. I shall address this matter from a slightly different starting point. The themes of what I shall say are basically that there is a pre-condition—of course there is—for effective action against poverty; that is a strong and stable and growing economy—the macro-economic policy which has been referred to. Its most important effect has been on the incomes of the less well off. The most important way in which that has been achieved has been the increase in employment of 1.3 million since 1997. Incidentally, for anyone who queries that, that is the lowest figure since the 1970s, both on claimant and ILO criteria. I say that to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. That is not just because of economic success but because of deliberate policies—the policies of the New Deal and of encountering the unemployment and the poverty trap—in other words, the policies of making work pay.
	It is also true that we would not be tackling poverty effectively if we only did so by increasing incomes, because we must tackle poverty in its non-household finance sense; in other words, in the quality and the targeting of public services. It is an unfortunate fact, and has been for many years, that the middle and upper classes have greater access to public services, to the services in particular of education and health, but also to some extent of housing. Unless we put more investment into our public services and their efficient reform, and in addition ensure that those in most need are capable of taking them up, then we will not be tackling poverty effectively.
	Clearly, I do not have time in the course of this debate to tackle the broader issues of the quality of our public services. However, I have time, and I want to spend a certain amount of time doing so, to talk about the way in which public services are being targeted to those most in need.
	So what am I going to say? I have already spent three minutes doing so already. The statistics are on the record and have been well aired in the course of this debate. I propose to follow the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Moser, to a combination of policies—the structure of the policies which constitute our approach to these issues. If in doing so I fail to answer questions as varied as the Prime Minister's visit to Africa or vacant government housing, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me.
	I start with the economy. I shall not go over the ground of macro-economic policies, except to say that if we are able—as we have—to spend £4 billion less on the cost of unemployment over the past two years than we did before, and if we are able to spend £8 billion less on debt repayment in a year than we did before, then the opportunities for positive action are that much greater.
	In terms of our expenditure on public services, by 2003-04 the Government will be spending £10.5 billion more on education and training than in 2000-01. Annual capital investment in housing will be £4 billion by 2003-04, compared with just £1.5 billion planned spending in 1997-98. That is underpinned by the target to ensure that more is spent in improving services in the more deprived areas that have in the past missed out on economic prosperity. That is the subject of the public service agreements which we have with the public service spending departments.
	I return to the issue of employment opportunity. The increase in the employment figure is 1.3 million, I think we can now safely say. One important factor of that is that it is equal in every single region. There are no regional inequalities. The New Deal for young people has helped more than 345,000 18 to 24 year-olds find work. In total, New Deal has helped more than 600,000 into jobs. I am aware of the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and I acknowledge that the drop-out rate must be taken into account and is serious. He must not assume that "no known destination" means that people have not got other jobs. On the contrary, from my experience of researching youth opportunities programmes during the 1980s, the most common actual researched outcome of "no known destination" was that people had come off the lists because they had other jobs and were no longer interested.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I thought that the Minister would raise that point. The same piece of research to which he refers shows that only 25 per cent of those people kept their jobs for six months, and only five per cent found them through their New Deal personal adviser.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Yes, my Lords, as far as was known about the first jobs that they achieved through the New Deal. My point is that people who go through the New Deal, as through previous programmes such as the Youth Opportunities Programme, do not necessarily stay in the same job but go on to other jobs.
	However, much more important than that is the problem to which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who is expert in the field, referred, which is the work that we must do to improve work incentives to deal with the unemployment trap, in which the difference in family income in and out of work is too small to provide an incentive to take a job, and the poverty trap, in which those already in work are discouraged from working longer hours or taking a better job because their marginal tax rate or loss of benefit rate is too high. We need more than one policy to tackle this difficult and complex problem. We need the minimum wage, which is benefiting a large number of people, 70 per cent of whom are women—that is an important point to make.
	We must take into account the fact that we have halved the marginal rate of tax for almost 2 million people through the introduction of the 10p starting rate of tax in April 1999 and the widening of the band last year. We must also take into account the fact that in April 2000 we cut the basic rate of tax to 22 per cent—the lowest rate for 70 years—and we have aligned the national insurance contribution threshold, which means that about 1 million low-paid workers no longer have to pay national insurance contributions.
	On top of that, we must take into account the working families' tax credit and the disabled person's tax credit, which target support on those who need it most. Nearly 1.3 million families receive working families' tax credit and, on average, they are £35 a week better off than they would have been under the old family credit. The childcare tax credit component is worth 70 per cent of eligible costs up to £135 a week for a family with one child and £200 a week for a family with two or more children.
	That combination must be acknowledged—as it has been in this debate, for which I am grateful—as an outstanding success. We can now guarantee a minimum level of income for people with children moving into work. Combined with the national minimum wage, the working families' tax credit guarantees a family with one earner working 35 hours a week a minimum of £225 a week. We have reduced to a third the proportion of families who face marginal benefit reduction rates of more than 70 per cent—that is the poverty trap—compared with 1997.
	Reference has been made to housing benefit. Housing benefit is what happens when we stop rent control—that is basically the truth of the matter. Unless everyone is able to afford decent housing, that is what we get. Therefore, the most important thing we can do with respect to housing benefit is to take people off it. The working families' tax credit starts to do that. We have already taken 70,000 people off housing benefit and we must continue that process. At the same time, we must make the benefit simpler and its collection more efficient. We have a target for 2010—I am looking at the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, as I say this—of a decent standard for all social housing, with an intermediate target of improving a third of social housing by March 2004.
	Let me turn to the wider agenda of public services. The important point is not the total amount spent on public services—well, of course it is, but that is not the subject of this debate—but the targeting of those areas, and therefore those people, most in need. We have established public service agreement "floor targets" covering the key public services to ensure that as average outcomes of public services improve, the worst-off groups living in the worst neighbourhoods also benefit from improvements—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. That is why we are providing £900 million over three years for the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund and targeted programmes such as Sure Start, Excellence in Cities and the New Deal for Communities. That is also why we are also seeking business involvement in the most difficult and disadvantaged areas.
	Perhaps the headline issue here is child poverty. We inherited a situation in which one in three children lived in households with an income below 60 per cent of the national median—which is the definition—and that was getting worse. The number of children in low-income households had doubled during the previous 20 years. In trying to turn round this problem, we are not just turning round a tanker that was stationary but one that was steaming at high speed—as far as tankers are capable of that—in the wrong direction. As the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, and others have reminded us, we had the highest rate of relative child poverty in the European Union and the highest proportion of children in households where no one worked.
	I shall not concentrate on the statistics of child poverty, other than to respond to two specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. First, yes, of course a relative poverty target is difficult to achieve because it is a moving target. But the absolute is also difficult to achieve—the Irish Government are trying to do so with great difficulty. Also, the relative target is real—it is real to people. If people are worse off than those around them, they feel poor. We cannot get away from that. Similarly, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Lea, I shall not describe policies designed to encourage social mobility, but poverty is the most profound barrier to social mobility and the most serious damage that can be done to a child's future chances of having a decent job and leading a decent life in a decent society.
	In December, following the pre-Budget report, the Treasury published a paper entitled, Tackling child poverty: giving every child the best possible start in life. I wish that, in congressional terms, I could have that document read into the record, because it contains the answers to many of the questions asked today.
	My second response to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, concerns the question of there being 1.2 million fewer children in relative poverty than there would otherwise have been. The noble Lord called that a myth. What we mean by "would otherwise have been" is, if previous policies or trends had continued. That is exactly my point about the tanker moving heavily in the wrong direction.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, it has absolutely nothing to do with a tanker moving in the wrong direction. Does the Minister deny that it is untrue to say that a million children who were in poverty, under the usual definition, at the time when the Government came into office, are now out of it?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are five years older, for a start. It is a different cohort of people. I am saying that it is different from what it would otherwise have been. That is the description.

Earl Russell: My Lords—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this is a timed debate—

Earl Russell: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. Would he also concede that not all improvements in the global economy since 1997 are to the credit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, they are a credit to the British people, their resourcefulness and their industry.
	The tests of changes in child poverty are that, as a result of all our policies combined, families with children are, on average, £1,000 a year better off in real terms. Families with children in the poorest fifth of the population are, on average, £1,700 a year better off in real terms. For example, a family with two young children on half average earnings—£12,700—is £3,000 a year better off in real terms. That is because of increased child benefit, the children's tax credit, the working families' tax credit and the raising of the children's allowance in income support.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, among others, referred to the New Deal for Lone Parents. We must take into account the nature of the New Deal for Lone Parents, which is voluntary and in the first instance requires only those with children aged five and over to attend a work-focused interview. The effect of it—there are 350,000 participants, with 130,000 placed into work—is that any lone parent working 16 hours or more has a minimum income guarantee of £166 a week or £225 a week for full-time work. For those working fewer hours, there is an increase in the income support disregard as support for those who cannot work.
	We must consider the direction in which the tanker was going. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, made the point that, between the 1970s and the mid-1990s, the number of lone parent households doubled, and the number on benefit trebled. That is the tendency that must be turned around. I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, was percipient on that point. Again, I say to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that what we are doing in respect of maternity and paternity pay and the duration thereof is surely important, particularly for very young children.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, referred to the issue of wallet-to-purse in the child tax credit, which we will introduce from 2003. Of course, one of the features of that is that it will be a secure stream of income for families with children, paid direct to the main carer. It will unify all the income-related child payments, and it will provide greater flexibility and a common framework for assessment, so that everybody is part of the same inclusive system. It will target help on those who need it most, when they need it most. It is an important new development, in the direction in which, I think, noble Lords wish to move. Decisions on the rates and thresholds will, of course, be set out in the Budget this year.
	I have so little time to speak about our childcare provisions, although I acknowledge the concern that was expressed. The number of new places that have been created is sufficient evidence of how serious such matters are. Again, I have so little time to speak on pensioner poverty, which ought, of course, to be an important part of the debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Layard, said in his opening speech, it is no longer the case that pensioners are more likely to be poor than anybody else. Therefore, targeted help for pensioners is the only conceivable solution that will achieve results. We have given above-inflation increases in the retirement pension for this year and next year; we have introduced the minimum income guarantee for the poorest pensioners, which benefits over 2 million pensioners, and that has been linked to earnings for the rest of this Parliament; and, of course, there are the free TV licences and the winter fuel payments.
	More attention was rightly paid to the next step, which is the pension credit. The noble Lord, Lord Paul, set out the basic facts about it. I must respond to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, about complexity. The pension credit will abolish the weekly means test and will apply for a much longer period. We have already successfully reduced the complexity of the application process, and we are moving in the direction of combining targeting with effective delivery.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Layard, and to all who have taken part in the debate.

Lord Layard: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I also thank everybody else who has participated in the debate, which has been a good one. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Climate Change: Kyoto Protocol

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: rose to call attention to Her Majesty's Government's plans to implement the Kyoto Protocol and the proposals they have for tackling the longer term challenges of climate change; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, the aim of the debate is for the House to consider the positive actions of Her Majesty's Government to address the effects of climate change. This is potentially the greatest physical threat facing this country and the whole world, during this century and the next. Nevertheless, the threat can be reduced, provided that there is decisive action by the whole international community.
	As some major effects are inevitable, whatever action is now taken, governments need strategies for adapting society to the changes, including encouraging new business opportunities associated with the new challenges. I shall briefly recall some of the evidence and predictions drawn from research into climate change that gave rise to international action and the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. I shall draw attention to the subsequent plans and actions by governments and industry in the United Kingdom and abroad to follow up on those commitments.
	It is a good story, which, I hope, will be more widely known, especially that of how the UK is playing a major role in every aspect of the global campaign. I look forward to hearing the contributions of other speakers, especially the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, who brings great experience and knowledge to the House. My noble friend Lady Farrington will wind up on behalf of the Government.
	Evidence that our climate is changing is now generally accepted. We can even learn that from leaflets at our friendly petrol station, whether its logo is tigerish, flowery or a shell. The facts are quite startling. Global temperatures have risen by 0.6 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The 1990s appear to have been the warmest decade in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,000 years. Carbon dioxide levels have risen by over 30 per cent since the Industrial Revolution. We are already seeing the impact of recent climate changes: shrinking glaciers; less ice in the Arctic; decline in some plant and animal populations; and earlier blossoming in botanical gardens throughout Europe. At Trinity College, Cambridge, the geraniums next to the fountain are now bedded out on 1st June, instead of 1st July, as the noble Baroness on the Woolsack will witness.
	Computer models of the changing state of the atmosphere and the oceans that allow for natural variations in climate and solar variability can now describe the past climate up to 100 years ago. But to account for the rise in temperatures over the past 100 years, it is necessary to include the effects of the extra carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted by industry, transport, agriculture and forest fires. Those gases trap the outgoing radiation from the earth—as satellites can now verify—and increase the surface temperature. Fortunately we will not reach the 700 degrees Celsius surface temperature of Venus, where greenhouse gases are much more concentrated.
	Those same computer models can predict the future. They show that global temperatures will rise by between 1.5 and 6 degrees Centigrade by the end of this century. That possible range depends upon the volume of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases emitted in future. It is quite likely that there will be a doubling during this century. Such a rate of warming will be without precedent in the past 10,000 years. Some research indicated that if the Russian permafrost melted, it could lead to a further release of methane—a very effective greenhouse gas—and average global temperatures could be even higher. If absolutely no action is taken, there is likely to be a levelling out of the temperature at a high level more than 300 years in the future, following a decline in the world's population which is predicted after about 100 years. That is the worst case scenario.
	People everywhere will experience the impacts of climate change in some way or other. Changes in climate extremes could be damaging and costly. In the UK probably the worst effects will be along coasts and estuaries where, over the next 100 years, on average there will be a rise of more than 0.5 metres. That may cause frequent flooding and probably the abandonment of some communities as the coastline retreats.
	Developing countries, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable people in those countries, will continue to be particularly affected by the adverse impacts of climate change. There will be more flooding in some areas like Bangladesh and droughts and desertification in Africa and central Asia. The social and security consequences are likely to be severe and have global repercussions, as the London ambassador of a central Asian republic forcibly reminded a recent London School of Economics seminar. That is why the Government are playing a leading role in the fight against climate change, both in the international arena and by ensuring that action is taken in the UK.
	So what can be done about this global problem? Primarily, emissions of greenhouse gases must be reduced by about 40 per cent to prevent the worst effects, according to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. There may be temporary solutions over a few decades by massive tree planting to fix the carbon dioxide, but recent research at the Hadley Centre suggests that that is not a permanent solution because, as the trees die, ultimately the carbon is released again.
	The Kyoto Protocol, though limited in its scope, represents the best international framework for addressing the problem of climate change. Essentially it will lead to a reduction in emissions of between 2 and 9 per cent by developed countries. Although it does not apply to developing countries, it is encouraging that as China's economy grows, its emissions are in fact increasing at a much lower rate than those of the United States.
	Agreement to and adoption of the rules necessary to implement the Kyoto Protocol, which were conducted in Marrakech in November 2001, was a major political achievement. It is further proof that the international community is capable of pulling together to achieve common solutions to common threats. The rules were adopted by over 170 countries and comprise over 240 pages. The agreement paved the way for ratification and entry into force of the protocol.
	For legal and presentational reasons, the European Community and each member state are aiming to ratify the protocol at the same time. It is hoped that that will happen at the next environment Council meeting in March. The Government will then ensure that the necessary procedures to enable UK ratification are completed as soon as possible. Other member states are committed to doing the same. The aim is to complete ratification to allow entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol by this year's World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, which will be held 10 years after the United Nations conference at Rio in 1992, when the Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed by many nations, including for the United States, by George Bush, father of the present US president.
	Although the United States has withdrawn its original support for Kyoto, it is important that the United States Administration have indicated finally that they accept and are committed to tackling climate change. They are now reviewing climate change policy at the highest level. The UK has urged the United States to ensure that that review results in serious domestic action. In fact it is supported by US industry which, just as it did in action to reduce the ozone hole, takes a global view. We can see that on their company web pages. Indeed, many of them are perhaps more engaged in climate change mitigation than many countries in Europe.
	There are encouraging signs within the United States, even in very conservative areas like Arizona where they recently voted a bond issue to construct a public transport system. One hopes that new US proposals will be compatible with Kyoto and that the US will return to the international process soon. We should also recognise that, although climate science is a magnificent international success story, the United States Government and universities have made a huge contribution; for example, by their generous and open provision of satellite, ocean buoys and the excellence of their research.
	A number of other countries have already ratified the Kyoto Protocol. One hopes that countries that have not yet committed will follow suit. It is good news that Japan has begun its ratification preparations. Russia, which had been a reluctant convert—as I learnt in my visit as chairman of ACOPS to the Duma and the Federal Hydromet Service in October—was also positive about ratification at the end of negotiations in Marrakech. It is hoped that Russia will soon make a firm commitment to this process. Climate change will have a huge impact on that country. The UK Government and non-governmental organisations are collaborating with other countries and international agencies to contribute science and development expertise to their challenging problems.
	Japan, Russia and Canada argue that they do not need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as other countries because they are maintaining huge areas of forest and not cutting it down. Those so-called "sinks", which amount to about 20 per cent of the reduction expected in greenhouse gas emissions, are now allowed for to a limited extent in the amounts of emission agreed for those particular countries.
	The UK Government's climate change programme has three main thrusts: first, the science of climate change and the assessment of impacts; secondly, the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; and, thirdly, adapting the UK to the likely consequences. The UK's excellent work on climate research and on the predictions and studies of impact of climate change is widely admired around the world and is regarded as the benchmark for science even in top US laboratories. It has been strongly supported by the previous as well as the present government. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, devoted her entire address to the United Nations in 1989 to this topic, and she also opened the Hadley Centre.
	The present Government have increased their support for those programmes; for example, by adding to the UK Climate Impact Programme and through the setting up of the Tyndall Centre, which was opened by Mr Meacher. That is based at the University of East Anglia, Southampton and UMIST, and focuses on the impacts of climate change. The UK is funding international space-satellite and ocean-buoys projects for climate monitoring. Those are absolutely essential to provide regular information to politicians involved in negotiations and to scientists and the public wanting to know how different aspects of the climate are changing year by year. The data help to forecast devastating global climate change events such as El Niño, which may be with us again this year.
	The government programme to cut the UK's emissions of greenhouse gases is planned to be 23 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010, well in excess of our Kyoto target. To achieve that, the Government have introduced strong incentives for industries and individuals to contribute their reductions to greenhouse gases; for example, the climate change levy, the establishment of the Carbon Trust and changes to vehicle excise duty and company car tax to encourage more fuel-efficient and low emission cars.
	Further financial incentives for innovation and creation of business opportunities for reducing carbon emissions will arise when the UK emission trading scheme starts this year. This, the world's first government as opposed to informal scheme, will be copied across Europe. Direct action by government, local authorities, non-governmental organisations such as the Energy Saving Trust, and millions of individuals are reducing carbon emissions in a number of ways. First, it is being done through energy conservation in transport, industry and in the home. Some of us recall a certain government long ago encouraging us to clean our teeth in the dark or to share a bath. The same spirit should apply today.
	Secondly, new technology is being introduced that could well lead to rapid reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. For example, a leading technologist in one oil company predicted that it would not be selling gasoline in 50 years. Most of its energy sales would be solar collectors and hydrogen, obtained cleanly from coal or oil and delivered to transport vehicles.
	Totally carbon-free approaches to energy supply are also being considered as an important component of the UK's energy supply. The Performance Innovation Unit's energy review is looking closely at the future of nuclear energy, including its wider, long-term environmental implications which are now much less threatening with the latest technology in use in power stations and nuclear processing facilities. We also need to keep open future possibilities of power from controlled nuclear fusion which has almost none of the environment risks of nuclear power stations. This is being advocated by powerful voices in Europe. Of all the areas of new energy technology, this is one where the UK has perhaps the greatest advantage with the Culham laboratory.
	However, for most environmentalists the favoured forms of carbon free energy are renewables from winds, tides and solar. The Government have introduced programmes to expand those quite rapidly to the level of 10 per cent of the UK's energy supply by 2010. The exemption of the climate change levy for this source of electricity is a powerful incentive. Anyone who has visited California or Denmark will see how financial incentives can lead to a good many wind machines being installed in a few years.
	Clearly the technical, environmental and financial initiatives for efficient energy use and energy supplies with reduced carbon emissions require at the government level an unusually close degree of co-ordination between government departments, notably between the DTI, DEFRA, DTLR and Her Majesty's Treasury. The joined-up approach of this Government is proving at least as effective in this respect as that of any other government I know abroad or any government I have experienced in the UK.
	Whether it is government or an individual, any sustained programme for energy efficiency and carbon emission requires monitoring and information. Most organisations and households have little idea about how they use energy and contribute to global warming. That is why the Government are encouraging the public and private sector to focus on monitoring, predicting and informing themselves and the public about the impacts of their energy and other processes on local and global environment. The fact is that carbon dioxides emitted here ultimately affect the sea level rise on an island in the Pacific, so we need to know what we are doing.
	Lastly, the final thrust of the Government is to take early action to asses our vulnerability and to identify adaptation priorities, in particular for floods, droughts, heatwaves and the more gradual temperature and sea level rises. Adaptation is beginning to be an integral part of policy in all those areas. Building regulations are one example and agriculture another. Health effects are an important area. The Government are supporting various programmes in this direction.
	For other parts of the world, DfID is ensuring that climate change effects are an essential part of its policy, helping the poorest governments to plan their future which may have to be changed—with one Pacific island moving a whole population. That is a measure of the seriousness of the issue. I commend the serious and committed approach of the Government. I beg to move for Papers.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on having instigated the debate and thank him for his wide-ranging descriptions of the many problems which arise from this crucial issue. I speak with some trepidation. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose knowledge on these matters is well known, and to be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who has forgotten more about the subject than I shall ever know, is a daunting task.
	The extent of global warming, if it actually occurs, is one of the great debates of our time. No matter how sceptical one is, it would be impossible not to be alarmed by some of the statistics in recent times which refer to what has happened in the past. That suggests to me that the predictions for the future must be taken seriously.
	As to cause and effects, I do not know. However, I should have thought that common sense alone suggests that if we continue to chuck enough pollutants into the atmosphere something must give. As someone who lives in the country, I have noticed the weather patterns changing and have observed changes in the behaviour of wildlife.
	The predictions of how the UK climate may change are alarming. A mean increase in temperature in the 2020s of 1.3 degrees centigrade, wetter winters and drier summers, and sea levels perhaps rising in the 2020s between 14 and 37 centimetres speak for themselves. If even half those predictions come true, it is clear that they are likely to have a profound effect on the way in which we conduct our lives.
	I wish to say a few words today from a rural perspective. I declare an interest in that I own land. I do not farm personally; all the land I own is let. The debate on climate change is ongoing but the political, scientific and media worlds do not appear to have acknowledged the interests of the countryside, which are very much in the front line of the issue. Indeed, I was most impressed by the recent report by the Country Land and Business Association on the matter. It came up with no less than 102 recommendations to government on global warming issues based almost exclusively on a rural perspective.
	The main point I wish to make is that, with the right policy framework, land managers can play a significant role in the reduction of greenhouse gases and help to mitigate other adverse environmental impacts. In other words, I should like to think that the two go together. That is an appropriate subject in view of the report which has been produced by Sir Don Curry.
	A very significant percentage of the world's carbon source is in the soil, in the organic matter, which is the principal source of the land manager. Consequently small changes in the volume of the soil's carbon can have a significant effect on carbon emissions either way. Cultivation—ploughing or forestry activities—results in carbon emissions. By changing cultivation methods farmers could actively store carbon in the soil.
	That leads to the interesting concept of carbon accounting. I realise that this is happening in business already but it is still very much in its infancy in the agriculture sector. It is the method of looking at all the greenhouse gases on farms—carbon, methane and so on—calculating what emissions are taking place and balancing those against the level of carbon sequestration in the soil and trees. It is an interesting concept which I hope that the Government will consider seriously.
	Another interesting development—I am sure noble Lords will be only too well aware of it—is renewable crops: crops used to produce carbon neutral energy such as willow coppice. I realise that this again is in its infancy but it surely must have a real future. Apart from the attraction of renewable crops as a means of producing clean fuel, it is to be hoped that they can act as a major replacement for some of the declining levels of uneconomic crops which will not survive the changes embracing agriculture at present. I appreciate that the Government have a target of 10 per cent of electricity produced from renewable sources by 2010. Are the Government satisfied that that target is being met?
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to forestry. It is a means of carbon sequestration and is acknowledged as such in the Kyoto agreement. But it is also worth mentioning that the production of quality timber, principally hardwood, can be a substitute for synthetic materials the manufacture of which contributes to global warming; and such timber could be used more in the construction industry, in houses and so on. Is the woodland grant scheme designed to incorporate such thinking? If not, I believe that the time is ripe for that to be so.
	On the question of flooding—an increasingly serious phenomenon—whether or not it is a by-product of global warming, clearly land managers can reduce the problem by creating managed flood plains to control the flow of water and, at the same time, introducing some additional wildlife benefits. Again this comes back to the agri-environment schemes which are so much under discussion at the moment.
	Let me give one final statistic which has always struck me. The predictions state that a 1 per cent increase in temperature will directly affect birds and plant species by moving them northwards by 100 miles or 150 metres uphill. I am not quite sure whether or not that is an option—I doubt it—but the point is extremely well made. This would have enormous significance, both in terms of the well-being of the species and in regard to food production and pest control.
	The opening-up of world trade through less restrictive markets—in other words, globalisation—is a fait accompli. I do not wish to comment on that other than to say that it is inevitable. But the aftermath of foot and mouth in this country, coupled with the other difficulties facing agriculture, have resulted in new ideas and new initiatives. The focus is now on the restriction of stock movement, the apprehension of imported meat—and therefore greater controls—local abattoirs, farmers' markets, local trade. All this, again, is reflected in the Curry report.
	It seems to me that these two forces appear to be pulling in the opposite direction. But clearly in the context of the debate today, the less movement of goods, the less impact on global warming, and therefore another factor to be fed into this complicated equation.
	I have already referred in the House to an article I read recently in a Countryside Alliance publication which struck me very profoundly indeed. I apologise to noble Lords who may have heard me say this before. It concerns a simple story: a farmer in Kent, carrying a trailer-load of apples to a farmers' market, spent more on fuel tax than did a supermarket flying in a plane-load of apples from South Africa. Not only is this a threat to food production in this country, to sustainable agriculture and to rural communities, in the context of this debate, I suggest, it is not much help either.

Lord Ezra: My Lords, when he began to speak the noble Earl, Lord Peel, was very reticent. In fact, he made a most important contribution on the rural aspects of climate change. I am glad that he placed emphasis on the energy contribution which can come from the land and which should be substantially developed.
	We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for introducing the debate and for the wide-ranging manner in which he did so. It somewhat limits what those who speak after can say on the subject. But we shall have some important speeches later, not least from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, who is a most distinguished participant in the energy sector.
	The Kyoto protocol has been rescued, much against most people's expectations, after the unfortunate developments at the Hague earlier. A large part of the rescue operation was undertaken by HM Government. It was quite a remarkable achievement. But the objective originally envisaged—that is, a 5 per cent reduction in emissions overall by 2010—has not come out of it because of the various negotiating modifications that had to be adopted. It is estimated that it could be less than half that. But that is not the important issue. The important issue is that a start has been made and that we can now build on what was achieved at Marrakech.
	I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to the American position. We were all dismayed when the Americans appeared to be withdrawing from the whole issue of climate change, but that does not now appear to be the case. There is much going on in the United States by way of research and development, in some areas of which they lead the world. From industrial, commercial and popular reactions in the United States, I believe that the Americans will very soon return, in one way or another, to join the other countries which are seeking to deal with this urgent problem.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, the next step is ratification. So far, very few of the Annex 1 countries—that is the industrialised countries—have ratified. Let us hope that soon the EU countries will set an example. Once they have ratified—and if what we have heard about attitudes in Russia, Japan and elsewhere is true, the necessary numbers will be reached before the Johannesburg conference in September—it looks as though reasonable progress will be made, and a good understanding reached, in the period up to 2010.
	In this country, the real challenge is what will happen after 2010. That is the date when the AGR power stations begin to be withdrawn from operation, and that is when, on the basis of expectations of energy demand in the various sectors, we could well have an increase in the usage of energy. As things stand at the moment, unless there are changes, the impact of all that could seriously set us back in our longer-term objective of achieving a reduction in emissions.
	These matters are closely linked with the issues at which, no doubt, the energy policy review is looking—in particular the issues of energy efficiency, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt referred, and energy security, which is bound to play a part.
	In the case of energy security, as we know the estimate is that we will run out of resources from the North Sea in the next few years, creating an import requirement for gas of the order of 90 per cent by 2020. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, with his great knowledge of the subject, will refer to this and give the House his views.
	As to the question of energy efficiency, this country, like many others, is very profligate in its use of energy. It has been estimated that we use only about 55 per cent of the energy generated. The remainder is wasted. The largest area of waste is the waste heat from power stations. Another big area of waste, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred, is the inefficiency with which we use energy in our homes. These are two most urgent questions. If we are to deal with the problem of climate change, of course renewables and alternatives will play their part, but one of the most important issues will be to make better use of energy. That will automatically reduce emissions.
	Let me deal with the question of waste heat from power stations. While we have built up a most efficient network of power stations connected by transmission lines—which many other countries have copied—the trouble is that it is not the most effective way of converting primary energy to secondary energy. We need to make sure that at least a proportion of electricity is generated much nearer to the points of consumption. Then we can make use of the waste heat and also save on the transmission losses. I declare an interest. Because I am strongly committed to this issue, I recently started a company called Micropower to promote the concept. It is supported by a number of the major companies involved in this area.
	On the question of energy efficiency in the home, I regret to say that Britain is among the countries where energy is used most inefficiently. The English House Condition Survey has indicated, each time it has appeared, that we have a higher proportion of poor conditions in housing than any of our counterparts in Europe and that that leads to main heat losses. I regret that the policy pursued by the Government of pressing for a reduction in the price of energy—which on the face of it sounds absolutely right—is one of the prime reasons why we have not done as much as we should in this area.
	Reducing the price of energy is socially and commercially desirable. However, it takes the eye off the main ball, which should be to make better use of energy. There should be more fiscal and financial incentives to use energy more efficiently, rather than pressure to reduce the price of energy as it is received. I hope that the forthcoming energy review will pay attention to that point. The matter cannot be resolved simply by means of legislation. A whole new attitude needs to be developed in this area.
	Energy security raises many issues, among them the need for a greater use of renewables. However, we must take a hard look at how that is being done and at the definition of renewables. The term is rather narrowly defined. It could, for example, include methane from disused coal mines. If methane from the mines enters the atmosphere, it causes much more harm than if it is captured and converted into electricity. Coal as such can also play a part through clean coal technologies and carbon extraction. All these technologies can be developed to help us, particularly in the period after 2010, to grapple on a continuing basis with the serious problem of climate change.
	I hope that the UK will continue in its leading role. It has played the lead in chapter one. The big question is: will it lead also in chapter two?

Lord Browne of Madingley: My Lords, I, too, believe that we owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for initiating this debate. Climate change is a crucial subject and this is a critical moment at which to examine the progress being made, here and internationally. I am personally indebted to the noble Lord because the debate gives me the opportunity to speak in your Lordships' House for the first time. I am grateful to the many people, both among your Lordships and among the staff and officers of the House, who have shown me great kindness. I hope that on matters such as this I can bring a particular perspective to this House, as a businessman working internationally.
	On the subject of climate change, I believe that this is a moment for realistic optimism. "Optimism" will undoubtedly seem a surprising word to use given the mounting weight of evidence about the seriousness of climate change and the scale of the risks involved. Optimism may seem surprising also given the fact that international negotiations appear to be stalled. But I believe that there are some reasons to be at least cautiously optimistic.
	The first is that the science has been accepted. Very few people now deny that climate change is a serious risk to the whole world. Of course, the science is incomplete and the conclusions are provisional. But all science is provisional. The search for truth always continues. The scientific work done so far shows that there is a material risk which we cannot ignore. That has now been accepted by the overwhelming majority of serious commentators and decision-makers.
	The second reason for optimism is that the need for precautionary action has been accepted. We may not know in absolute detail the causes and consequences of climate change, but we can see the need to take steps to reduce the risk.
	Many precautionary actions are being taken—and they are succeeding. They take many forms—which is in itself a good thing, because this is not an issue which can be resolved by a single wave of a magic wand. Here in the UK, there has been a shift to fuels with less carbon. That has also been the case in China—as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned—where the emissions of greenhouse gases are estimated to have fallen by more than 15 per cent between 1998 and 2000 as the country shifted away from coal and in favour of natural gas.
	Companies, too, are taking precautionary action. They are using energy more efficiently, eliminating waste, and applying new technology to reduce the emissions from their operations and from the products they sell. There have been advances in the sequestration of carbon, and in some parts of the world new forests have been planted to offset emissions. And in many cases—both at the national and at the corporate level—the various actions being taken are backed by trading schemes which ensure that emissions are reduced by applying resources in the most effective places. What is perhaps most remarkable is that progress is being made without a huge cost being imposed on the economy.
	Optimism must be grounded in reality. Hydrocarbons—oil and gas—remain vital sources of energy and the level of demand for both of those fuels is likely to grow as population and economic activity increase. Alternative and renewable fuels are making great progress, but they are still essentially at the experimental stage of development. Their day will come; but for the moment, energy means hydrocarbons. That is the necessary note of realism.
	But from that starting-point, given recent experience, it is possible to look ahead and to see a growing world economy in which the emissions of carbon per unit of output are gradually, progressively, falling.
	Of course, there is much more to do. Technology and best practice have to be spread and used on a global basis. This issue is inseparable from the general cause of development. In many areas more research and technical development are needed, which is why the work being done at universities here and in the United States is so important.
	There is a need to create a framework which enables the steps being taken by different countries and organisations to be valued and incentivised. That will ensure that emissions are reduced at the lowest possible cost and will also confirm that each country, each company and each consumer can pursue solutions which reflect their own particular circumstances.
	And on that, too, I am optimistic. We do not have such a framework yet, but the progress made over the past few years will help us to achieve one because we can now see that we are dealing with a challenge which can respond to practical action.
	The combination of realism and optimism is for me the definition of progress. On an issue of such importance, there is no room for complacency—but equally there is no cause for despair.

Lord Garel-Jones: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley. We live at a time of great debate about the composition of this House. I am sure that your Lordships hope that, whatever changes may come about, they will enable distinguished fellow citizens from the world of business, science or the arts to make the kind of contribution that we heard from the noble Lord today. I am sure that the whole House looks forward to further contributions from him on this subject and on others.
	Global warming is a global problem that demands global solutions. The first problem that arises with global solutions is that many countries, including our own, find that they can occasionally seem to pose a threat to what, in traditional terms, might be called their own sovereignty. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out, the Kyoto protocol may well be limited in scope and perhaps does not go far enough, but the most encouraging aspect of it is that at least it provides a framework within which we can begin to think about a global solution to the problem.
	Part of any global solution will involve what one might call burden sharing. The world's richest countries, which are the greatest producers of pollutants into the atmosphere, will need to make the greatest sacrifices. If one measures the output of human beings as one might measure horse power, to sustain the needs of one citizen of the United States of America it is necessary for 120 people to co-operate in the effort; to sustain the needs of a citizen of the European Union it is necessary for 60 people to co-operate; to sustain the needs of a citizen of the Republic of China, eight people are needed; and to sustain the needs of a citizen in Bangladesh, one person is needed. To put it more bluntly still, the United States of America produces 25 per cent of the emissions into the atmosphere in support of 4 per cent of the world population. Burden sharing is crucial.
	I was particularly pleased to hear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and from the tone of the debate that the issue does not seem to arouse partisan feelings—in this House at any rate. I was pleased with the tribute that the noble Lord paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and to Mr Major, who signed the Rio accord. The previous government can also take some credit for the way in which the European Union has begun burden sharing. The three major producers of emissions—the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany and Holland—are assuming a greater part of the burden than might normally be expected to fall upon them in order to relieve some part of the burden from Portugal, Spain and the Republic of Ireland.
	That brings me to the United States. One particularly pleasing aspect of the debate, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his opening remarks, has been the absence of the attitude that we can prove how British, French or European we are or how committed we are to tackling the problem of climate change by how rude and offensive we can be to the United States of America. That policy is not only mistaken, but far removed from the facts, as the noble Lord pointed out.
	It is true that at the outset the United States Government perceived the Kyoto protocol as an intrusion into their sovereignty, in a sense, but our Government are to be congratulated on taking a leading role in moving the United States Government towards a position in which we can hope that they will sign up to the protocol and provide the lead that only they can provide in tackling the problem. By their signature to the Montreal protocol on the ozone layer, the United States Government have proved that they understand that such problems need a global approach. I think that we can be optimistic in that sense.
	What now? Following the events of September 11th, the United States Government have demonstrated to the world and to themselves that they can pursue their interests and protect their citizens when they are able to stand in front of a coalition. They have done that with skill, restraint and success. We should invite our Government to use the influence that I believe they have, particularly the Prime Minister, to suggest to the United States Government that the contribution that they already make—to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, drew attention—is not sufficient. The United States alone ought to be leading on the issue. I very much hope that our Government will continue the good work that they have been doing and will ensure that the United States Government take up the position that we all hope and expect them to take on this matter.

Baroness Thornton: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on initiating this important debate and add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, on his extremely well informed and interesting maiden speech.
	The Kyoto meeting in 1997 was an important stage in the global strategy for dealing with climate change, as it represented an important breakthrough in the acceptance that climate change is caused by human activity. It is a first step aimed at the developed world and has been a very shaky step, given the withdrawal of the United States, which is the world's biggest polluter.
	We all know that the target in 1990, reported to the 1992 Rio earth summit, calculated that an immediate 60 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions would stop the build-up of carbon dioxide. The conference warned:
	"If the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations is not limited, the predicted climate change would place stresses on natural and social systems unprecedented in the past 10,000 years".
	Those huge figures—60 per cent, 10,000 years and several others that my noble friend Lord Hunt and others who are much more scientifically expert than I am have brought to today's debate—have created a mountain that ordinary people find it difficult to face and to climb.
	I shall make a few remarks about the global situation, but mostly I shall address myself to the local, the community and the personal. Like many, I was proud that my Government took a firm stance on Kyoto and its subsequent meetings. The leadership that the UK Government have shown has kept the door open to the United States Government—a door that I hope, in time, they will go through. Like many, I was disappointed when George Bush withdrew the original support that the United States had given to Kyoto.
	As my noble friend has said, the UK's research on climate change has made a huge contribution to helping to solve the problem. The UK has generally been recognised and praised for its generosity. We must not slip back and reduce our commitment. What should we be doing in our homes, our communities, our towns and our cities? The policy framework that local authorities face on energy conservation and related issues is increasingly complicated. Will my noble friend the Minister assure us that local government is playing its part and will continue to do so?
	In the course of researching this speech, it came to my attention that, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, satellite and aircraft monitoring make it possible to "photograph", which may not be the right word, the heat emissions of every town, street and even home. I suspect that such photographs have already been taken. If they have, what is being done with that information? Is Slough council—an example that I have plucked from the air; I do not know much about Slough council—aware of its heat emissions? Based on that information, has the local authority developed a policy to contribute to emissions reduction? Should not data that have been gained street by street and house by house inform our strategy? Perhaps a review of the local authority contribution will also consider how communities that try hard to address the issue can be rewarded.
	What about our personal and very local contribution? Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I am an urban creature, but, like him, I feel that we have to examine ways of encouraging energy saving and recycling at the very local level. Many local authorities have addressed environmental issues and attempted to make their contribution to saving the world on the basis of Agenda 21. Your Lordships might remember those debates. Perhaps another, greater push for local action will be made at the Earth Summit + 10 which will take place in Johannesburg. I hope, and I am sure, that the UK Government will be at the forefront of any such initiative.
	Our children's education and awareness of environmental issues are major factors in addressing those issues. The national curriculum itself addresses many issues to do with recycling waste, greenhouse gases and the environmental effects of global warming. The job of parents and teachers is to ensure that we translate that theory into practical daily action in the home. We should explain, for example, how to treat domestic waste and the benefits of walking or taking the bus to school rather than taking a car. We should also accept that, in many ways, our lives need to slow down. It is not necessary to live life at such a fast pace. We should explain the benefit of planning one's life so that one is able simply to walk or take the bus.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, we are very wasteful in our homes. I live in a modern house. When the builders were selling it, they proudly explained to me that it was also a very energy efficient house. Although I was a little sceptical at the time, the fact is that my fuel bills are half those I had in my previous, Victorian house. Better insulation and house design are the way forward.
	We also have to make environmental awareness fun for our children if we are to interest them in the issue. I have yet to find a computer game about saving the planet that is as challenging and fun as games involving Lara Croft and James Bond. Our children are addicted to the latter type of game. I therefore challenge game inventors to devise equally interesting games about the environment. It could be their contribution to saving the planet.
	I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that there is no room for complacency, and I do not believe that the Government are complacent. However, although there is no room for gloom, there is an urgency to the issue which this debate has revealed.

The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, I join other speakers in paying a warm tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for initiating this debate and for the quality of his speech.
	It is heartening to know that the Government will ratify the Kyoto protocol well before the UN summit in August. It is equally heartening that the Government's climate change programme more than covers the 12.5 per cent reduction required by Kyoto. I hope and pray that the programme is successfully implemented by 2010 as intended. I also hope and pray that the much more stringent requirement of a 60 per cent reduction by 2050, the case for which was made last year by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, is achieved. As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said, that is the bigger challenge.
	The need to move towards a low-carbon economy is paramount. The tortuous process that led to and followed Kyoto cannot be afforded again. Once Kyoto is ratified, we must regard ourselves as committed to remain on the path to a sustainable, low-carbon economy. We must produce just and intelligent policies to reduce our share of the poisoning of the atmosphere that has gone on so prodigally in the industrialised world for so long.
	For too long, the industrialised world has been allowed to make its decisions on the basis of what it can afford rather than what it needs. Yet I am frequently struck, as I am sure other noble Lords are, by the number of people of good will who are sincerely trying to live their lives less selfishly, making changes at whatever level they can. For part of the duty of being human is to leave things better than one found them. However, people of good will are trying to effect change often within a framework that militates against them.
	The pace of life, which ensures that we all have to find the quickest way to travel from one place to another, together with the cost and trouble of switching to alternative energy sources, overwhelm many a good intention and leave people much where they started but with a consolidated feeling that there is nothing they can do to help; it is beyond the power of the individual to change. How would it be if the Government heard that grassroots need and swung into action to help, perhaps more effectively and constructively? Make it easy for individuals to reduce their energy consumption and we may be startled by the size of the response.
	As we know so well, not all people seek so earnestly to serve humanity's needs before their own. The restraint required in consuming less is effortful and often our convenience overrides our conscience. Moreover, as we become less and less true to our internal, spiritual selves, so we become more and more demanding of the external, material universe to satisfy our—actually insatiable—desires for distraction and entertainment.
	The industrialised world's prodigal consumption of energy is, I believe, directly related to this loss of spiritual connection. As a Christian, I can offer the insight that a life nourished and challenged—I emphasise the word challenged—by prayer is a considerable help in mitigating my appetite for material goods. But such an insight cannot be forced on people; it only dawns when it is sought.
	Meanwhile, there is a serious charge of injustice to the poor of the world which we in the West have to answer whether we like it or not. I very much welcome the Prime Minister's current visit to Africa. The poor of the world are paying for our affluent lives, and government must not wait for widespread changes of heart among their population before they insist on change. They have to use their wit and do all in their power to fashion policies to ensure that,
	"self interest serves what justice demands",
	and make it more painful to consume energy and emit poisonous gases than not to.
	The work has started, and we have been encouraged by much of what has been said in this debate. Let that be sustained and fruitful for the whole of God's creation and indeed its future survival.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, gave what I would describe as a masterly review of all the problems affecting global warming. I am delighted that so distinguished an expert has become the chairman of ACOPS, of which I was chairman for a long time and am now happy to be president. The noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, no less, is the founding president of ACOPS, so this House and ACOPS are not doing too badly!
	We are dealing here with a highly complex issue. Scientists the world over find themselves deeply divided over cause and effect. President Bush, and those politicians advising him, essentially rejected the approach that climate change endangers the planet. Perhaps some degree of special pleading has something to do with that. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, is right and that they can be moved on that issue. I do not know whether that is the case but we certainly have to make an effort. After all, probably the majority of United States scientists who are experts in this field reject the scepticism which, according to Dr Benjamin Preston, a senior research fellow at the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change in the United States, is advanced by many sceptics who are non-practising scientists or conservative organisations or other interest groups with a vested interest in undermining Kyoto and all that it stands for.
	Personally I prefer the presumption of probability in situations of this kind. How else can the man or woman in the street make up their minds on this issue? That, in a remarkable maiden speech, is what the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, prescribed.
	Is Kyoto the death-knell for business? Michael Meacher—and I agree with him—certainly does not think so. By taking a lead, British business, through the development of a domestic emissions trading scheme, can secure a future that will be for the benefit of all. It is because we and others took that view that Margot Wallstro m, the EU environment commissioner, could say after the important environmental deliberations which have taken place, "Now we can go home and look our children in the eye and be proud of what we have done".
	Kyoto, and also what was achieved at Marrakech, are far from perfect. However, as Michael Meacher has said,
	"It's the only game in town".
	It is totally unrealistic to pretend that somehow or other Kyoto will go away, nor will permitting the pollution of water supplies or allowing greater exploitation of oil and timber reserves in national parks, to mention only two of the environmental retreats sanctioned by the Bush administration.
	The President of the United States considered that the protocol was dead. Indeed, that is the word he used. I believe that he is profoundly wrong. I hope that he will increasingly recognise that the Kyoto protocol can be realised. Therefore, I ask my noble friend what plans this Labour Government have to win over the United States. Failing that achievement—I hope that I am profoundly wrong about that—how will the Government make Kyoto succeed? Have they any plans, a point made by several noble Lords, to introduce fresh measures on energy use? I suppose that we shall have to await the Budget for credible evidence about that. If that is not the case how can the United Kingdom meet its targets under the Kyoto protocol for reducing greenhouse emissions?
	Those are some of the questions that must be posed. There are others. For example, how do we verify a country's, or for that matter a company's, emissions? Is there a difference between the European Commission's draft directive on the creation of an emissions trading scheme for the European Union as a whole and the United Kingdom's scheme which is due to begin this year? What objections do our Government have to the EU's mandatory approach as opposed to their own voluntary scheme? Are there any other differences which we ought to know about? As I say, I do not think that the protocol is perfect but it is a start. It represents a vital foundation for the future. The balance of evidence we now have requires us to take effective steps at this time to overcome real damage to the global environment. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is more confident than ever that our climate is being changed for the worse as a result of man's activities and that we must arrest that change before it is too late.
	That summarises the challenge that we face. Some effectively seek to duck it. I have thought for a long time—I may be wrong—that the Government of the United States seek to duck the challenge. The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, took a different view. He may be right; I hope he is. However, if we had adhered to that kind of approach with regard to the Montreal protocol, the hole in the ozone layer would pose an even more significant threat than it does. Nothing can be achieved if we deem it too difficult to try. But try we must if global warming and everything which exacerbates its effects is not to overwhelm the quality of life on our planet. I hope that the measured optimism which has been reflected in this important debate will be seen increasingly on the world stage.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for introducing this debate, perhaps he will not be too upset if I say that some of us are just a little less certain than he is that the Government are doing everything that is absolutely necessary in this field. Indeed, I am quite sure that if the noble Lord thought that to be the case he would not have bothered to introduce the debate.
	One motivation for putting down one's name to speak in such a debate is the knowledge that one will be listening to experts in the field who bring with them a level of expertise that is valuable and essential for someone like me who describes himself as a jobbing politician rather than an expert. I was very pleased to note that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, had put down her name to speak. I do not believe that she would be too upset if I described her as a jobbing politician as well since I believe that politics is probably the highest profession in a democratic society, whatever others may think. A degree of common sense and of looking for practical solutions are what politics is about.
	The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, in his most erudite maiden speech, said that he believed that progress was a matter of combining optimism with realism. I believe that it is the job of politicians to turn optimism into commitment and realism into action. The work of experts plus politicians ought to result in progress. The fact that that does not always take place is perhaps because of our own inadequacies.
	This is a timely debate in one sense. The meeting of the European Parliament this morning passed a resolution. It was being consulted by the Council of Ministers about the Kyoto Protocol and its implementation by the European Community and its member states. It voted to approve the measure this morning. That is timely because it is not just the British Government who can be proud of their record in pursuing the Kyoto Protocol despite all the difficulties that they ran into. It would have been very difficult indeed for that to be accomplished without the European Union as a major forum in the world to promote the protocol with a very substantial sector of the industrialised world which was prepared to take it on and persuade the rest of the world. The fact that the European Union countries intend to ratify Kyoto together in a symbolic way is most important. It is not just important as regards the issue itself, including global warming and all the peripheral consequences which appear to flow from that, but it is important as a step forward in rational and democratic global governance with sensible ways of tackling the huge global problems which we face.
	Yet it takes a long time. It seems to have been 10 wasted years from Rio to Kyoto five years ago, through Marrakech and now Johannesburg. Yet progress is being made, but all too slowly. There is no doubt whatever that people will suffer in all the ways set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others during this debate. But some progress is better than none. Without it it would be very difficult indeed to achieve the much greater progress about which my noble friend Lord Ezra spoke. I associate myself with everything that he said.
	I also associate myself with everything said by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, about the importance of relating these issues to those of the countryside and particularly as regards the huge opportunities there are to take advantage of what should be huge new markets for biofuels in the future. That will occur only if we are able and prepared in this country to take the initiative and develop technologies. As my noble friend says so often, this is an area where those countries which take the initiative will benefit not just environmentally in the future, but economically as well. There is a huge opportunity here for us. If we have sense we will seize it. If we do not we shall suffer.
	Ten years have been lost in negotiations and talks. There is still a huge problem with the United States. I share the scepticism of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, rather than the greater optimism of others. It does not matter what we believe. Everyone on this planet has to continue to do what they can to put pressure on and influence the United States. Unless the United States and North America as a whole are able to come to terms with this problem and realise that it is one for them as well as for the rest of the world, we will not solve it.
	How we are going to tackle the problem? It is quite clear that the Kyoto targets are interim measures. Whether the longer-term targets are 60 per cent by 2050 or some other figure, it is quite clear that we have to tackle these targets very seriously indeed, which means very great changes. If we look all the time for short-term solutions, we shall not find long-term answers.
	At the moment it appears that, within the European Union, the United Kingdom and Germany are doing quite well in reducing emissions of the six Kyoto greenhouse gases. The figures I have from the EU suggest that the United Kingdom has been able to reduce them by 14 per cent and Germany by 19 per cent. The United Kingdom reduction is almost entirely due to the dash for gas in electricity generation. That is clearly not sustainable in the long run. It has to be made up in the future. The German reduction is almost entirely due to the modernisation of the previously decrepit industrial infrastructure in East Germany. We have to take these matters incredibly seriously. In particular we have to regard them as serious in the fields of building and transport, particularly in the latter which is perhaps the most difficult of all.
	As regards energy generation, at the moment gas is producing 39 per cent of our electricity. Clearly, in all but the short to medium term that is not sustainable. There is a lobby in this country that suggests that the answer lies in nuclear power. If the answer lies there, the suggestion is that the present 23 per cent generated by nuclear power could be increased to 30 per cent. Many of us have very grave reservations about that. We are waiting to see what the Government's energy review produces. There are long-term security and economic problems in the nuclear industry and the enormous costs of waste disposal, including the problems of security of supply if generation is concentrated in a few very large units compared with a possible scenario under renewal energy in which there is far great flexibility in the system, far more generation at a local level and far more response to the needs of the local population.
	The September 11th attacks do not suggest that as regards the nuclear industry security ought to be high on its list of plus points. The massive costs of decommissioning, decontamination and the safe disposal of nuclear waste are issues which have not been solved. No one knows how that will be achieved. That suggests that we should not be moving forward with the nuclear option at this stage. The problem with nuclear fuel is not whether it can fill some of the gap; it involves how much of the 23 per cent of energy generated from nuclear sources is sustainable in the medium-term and how to replace that with renewable energy sources of some kind. There are many such sources, including wind and biofuels.
	It is time that the Government conducted a serious investigation into the whole question of biofuel. I believe that that could lie at the heart of a solution to the present crisis in the countryside and the whole question of the future of farming in this country. Everybody laughs when people point out that 100 years ago, 20 per cent of this country's farmed land area produced biofuel in the form of hay and oats for horses, but that is a fact. There is no reason why that cannot be done in future in a rather different way. However, that would need a major initiative from central government and a major investigation into how that is possible, what research needs to be done and how practically it can be brought about. The people who are currently involved in that area are scratching away at the periphery.

Lord Judd: My Lords, the thought of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton speaking on this subject was intimidating enough; having heard him, it takes a great deal of courage for any of his colleagues to rise to their feet.
	At the outset I should declare an interest. I am a trustee and member of a number of NGOs that are concerned with environmental matters. In the context of this debate, I thank in particular WWF, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, Greenpeace and SERA for the invaluable tutorials by post that they have given me.
	The professionally and scientifically highly endowed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change spelt out, in its most recent report last year, in moderate language the magnitude of the challenge. It is a matter of ethics and equity. Failure to act now, when we know what needs to be done, will inflict a heavy toll on future generations. Put bluntly, negligence will result in very much more death and suffering than is ever likely to result from terrorism.
	It is altogether reassuring that our own Government have undertaken to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in time for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Tomorrow, as WWF reminds us—its campaign is due to begin then—sees the start of the 200-day countdown to that summit. It would be a terrible failure on the part of the world's leaders if, by the time that the summit assembles, sufficient numbers of governments have not ratified. Can my noble friend therefore assure us when she winds up that the Government will now give a lead by making ratification an urgent priority and that, if need be, they will not wait for the European Union to act together? Such a priority would, I suggest, be particularly timely in light of the Prime Minister's welcome focus on the needs and challenges of Africa. Many of the consequences of global warming will be felt most acutely in that continent.
	Credibility for any such lead will inevitably depend on the convincing detailed arrangements that we put in place to enable us to fulfil our undertakings and meet our targets. The more convincing those are and the sooner they are in place, the greater will be the encouragement and challenge to others to follow suit. As my noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton emphasised, the Government deserve a great deal of recognition for what they have already done in terms of reducing the UK's greenhouse emissions. I am sure that he agrees with me that there is still a very long way to go. The foundations on which to build are in place.
	The detailed priorities are clear. As many of the organisations to which I have already referred emphasise, the Government will need to introduce numerous measures. They include: the expansion of current energy efficiency and conservation education programmes; building regulations that move progressively towards "zero heating" houses; generous support for energy efficiency research and development, focusing on key technologies such as fuel cells; more ambitious standards for appliances and cars, which are set at EU level; traffic strategies to stabilise and reduce road traffic; more freight by rail; extension of the emissions trading scheme to cover all major business polluters; greater use of climate change levy receipts to support sustainable energy activities in business; much greater support for combined heat and power, including full exemption from the climate change levy; energy efficiency reviews that are made mandatory in leases of commercial buildings; reduced-rate VAT on energy efficient appliances; setting up of an office of sustainable energy that is headed at least by a Minister of State—as part of its responsibilities, that office should promote combined heat and power; the long-term goal of a fully renewable energy system; ambitious staged targets to ensure the delivery of our strategic commitment; major research and development programmes into renewable sources, energy storage and hydrogen technology; immediate support for the implementation of key technologies and of wind power especially; a more positive planning regime with regional targets and a presumption in favour of development outside protected landscapes; reform of agricultural policy to encourage energy crops—the speech by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in that respect was particularly important; urgent reform of electricity markets to remove the biases against small power generators; and reform of the electricity network rules to encourage the connection of small-scale power sources with fair pricing rules.
	It is not just at home that action is necessary. Internationally, the priorities for which the United Kingdom should be striving and in relation to which it should be taking action itself, where appropriate, are numerous. They include: the introduction of stringent international environmental and social standards to limit the use of sinks under the Kyoto Protocol—I, for one, am not convinced that they have a major role to play; a strong Kyoto compliance regime with legally binding consequences for non-compliance and full transparency; an accelerated round of UN negotiations, leading to emissions reductions that are based on safe, global per capita limits to greenhouse gases; much increased emergency aid and preventive adaptation funding to assist vulnerable communities around the world in protecting themselves against the impact of climate change; the implementation of the recommendations of the G8 Renewable Energy Taskforce, including the elimination of all fossil fuel and nuclear subsidies; the reform and reorientation of multilateral development banks to support the deployment of sustainable energy systems worldwide, with particular emphasis on funding, technology sharing and capacity building, which will provide access to affordable energy for the 2 billion worldwide—especially women—who are currently without access to adequate energy services; and reform and reorientation of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to support renewable energy and energy efficiency exports instead of technologies that are based on fossil fuels and nuclear power. We should also act as a champion of binding environmental standards for export credit agencies at the OECD.
	It is difficult to envisage any major issue that will impinge on the future of the United Kingdom and the well-being of our children and grandchildren that is not inextricably part of a global reality. Relevant politics is international global politics. Here in Westminster, history will judge us by our commitment to contributing to the effective global policies that are essential for the viability of our own society no less than the viability of all other societies of which the world is comprised. That is true of the terrorism that currently preoccupies us but it is at least as true—I believe that it is more true—of the environment and global warming. We, like every other nation, simply cannot deal with it on our own. We are all vulnerable to what happens globally; and what happens globally is an aggregate of what we all do. Frankly, it is not just ironic—I shall not echo what some others in this debate have said—but sad, and, I believe, potentially dangerous that the United States, which does more than most to stimulate global warming, has stood aside from the global dynamic that is essential if the problem is to be contained.
	The United Kingdom Government must leave no stone unturned in their efforts to persuade our US cousins to impose a mandatory cap on their carbon dioxide emissions, and to ratify the Kyoto protocol. I pray that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for whom I have almost unlimited respect, is right in this instance to be confident in this respect.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, it is clear that all noble Lords who have spoken are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for introducing the Motion. Much has been written about global warming and climate change. Indeed, we have seen experts from around the world who have argued about the causes and told us about the various scenarios and potential impacts on all our lives. It is clear from comments that have been made in the Chamber tonight that this is not an issue that will go away, or, indeed, one we can ignore.
	Noble Lords have ranged far and wide in their speeches. We have heard from those who are experts in the field; and, to quote my noble friend Lord Greaves, we have had "jobbing politicians". I believe that I come somewhere halfway in between this description. Like my noble friend I was a "jobbing politician" for much of my life, but I always had a particular interest in this area—an interest that I shall make use of later in my remarks.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, set out most clearly the background to our debate. He also talked about what was happening in England, especially as regards the very important scientific community, and what was actually happening on the part of the Government. The noble Lord talked about the importance of co-ordination, to which I shall return later. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, we were all very grateful for the contribution from the noble Earl, Lord Peel. If you like, his was a lone voice as regards the importance of the countryside. My noble friend Lord Greaves touched on the importance of biofuels, which has been the subject of debate in this House.
	Various noble Lords talked about America. I do not wish to disagree with my noble friend Lord Ezra, but some of the disquiet mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in relation to America's attitude to Kyoto and to getting together globally on these issues is a matter of concern to me. I was pleased to note that my noble friend Lord Ezra and the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, believe that our worst fears have dissipated for the moment.
	Like other speakers, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, on his maiden speech. I hope that he will contribute to our future debates on this subject. He, too, talked about the global nature of the issue. However, although this is a global matter, the tone of the noble Lord's speech suggested that it is of concern to us all individually, and that, individually, we have a collective responsibility as regards future generations. We should be grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that note of both optimism and realism. It is easy for those of us in this field to become rather cast down on occasion. We are all grateful to him for the points that he made.
	As is the case with my noble friend Lord Greaves, I am not so encouraged by some of the Government's actions, especially in the area of energy and of energy efficiency. I wish to put forward a few reasons for that view. I believe that there is a lack of coherency between civil servants and Ministers across government departments. That is my experience, particularly in energy matters. It is also my experience following eight years spent in both Houses of Parliament. Indeed, that view has been expounded in Select Committees considering such issues, especially in another place. I should add that it is also the opinion of outside observers, not least some of the journalists who have an interest in the area.
	I shall quote from journalist Peter Kellner's speech given at a conference that I attended. He clearly described the problem regarding the way the Government are divided when he said:
	"Whitehall is more like a medieval court, with lots of rival factions jostling for the monarch's favour than a rational, co-ordinated system of policy formation. In this case there's more than one monarch; there's one at number 10 Downing Street and another at number 11. In fact there's a triangle of power and influence. You've got a part of the Department of Trade and Industry, you've got the rest of the DTI with DEFRA and the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office, and then the Treasury".
	That is part of the problem. Much of the work of the DTI is concerned with climate change, and especially with security of energy supply. But a small part of the DTI, of DEFRA and of the PIU is more concerned with environmental issues, energy efficiency and renewables.
	The Treasury is often the stumbling block when we are trying to deal with these issues. Some noble Lords have talked about the climate change levy. I believe that people welcome the Government's efforts in that respect, but there have been problems. It is not working out in quite the way that people wish, especially when it comes to combined heat and power. Perhaps I may declare an interest here as a non-executive director of a company that deals with combined heat and power and district heating. I know from that experience, and from others, that all is not well. We have had a U-turn on student fees, but it remains to be seen whether we shall see one on the climate change levy. Although I am making jokes about it, I recognise that it is a very serious problem and one that we must address.
	Another matter that worries me is the Government's record on legislation in this area. It is rather disappointing. I have talked about the climate change levy, but I believe that all the legislation introduced into the Houses of Parliament, especially on energy efficiency, has been in the form of Private Members' Bills; in other words, it has not come from government. Some of those Bills were successful; indeed, I was lucky enough in another place to pilot the first Home Energy Conservation Act through Parliament. We knew that that was only a beginning. We could not get targets set on the face of the Bill because, as I shall explain, that is one of the problems. However, it was a beginning. It gave local authorities the responsibility for drawing up reports and plans about energy efficiency in domestic properties throughout England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
	There was also the warm homes Bill, which introduced the fuel poverty strategy that everyone welcomed. But that was also a Private Member's Bill. There is another Home Energy Conservation Bill going through another place. At present, it is stuck halfway through Committee stage, despite hopes that it would have progressed further by now. Again, I believe that we are having problems in relation to responsibilities across departments and also with regard to an unwillingness to deal with setting targets. Part of that stems from the fact that the Treasury always becomes worried about the cost when one quantifies what one wants to do.
	As I said, the second Home Energy Conservation Bill got into several difficulties this week. I have spoken to the Minister, the right honourable Michael Meacher, about this matter over a number of years and I know that he is committed to it. Yet he proposed amendments to the Bill which wrecked its purpose. That purpose is to ensure that we have proper targets in place with regard to greenhouse gases and improved energy efficiency. But he made helpful noises.
	This issue is particularly worrying because the Cabinet Office has produced a review for the Performance and Innovation Unit. I know that the review has not been made public but it was discussed in a committee yesterday and, therefore, I shall report what was said in that committee. I am aware, as I am sure the Minister will tell us when she replies, that it is a report to government and not of government. The review stated that the aim was to ensure that the energy efficiency of domestic consumers improved by 20 per cent between now and 2010 and by another 20 per cent between 2010 and 2020. That would double the existing rate of improvement.
	Others have calculated for me that a 20 per cent improvement between 2002 and 2010 would match exactly the 30 per cent target set in 1995 in the first Home Energy Conservation Act. I regret that, in their attempt to bring that about, local authorities have made slow progress. There have been insufficient resources and I do not believe that there has been enough guidance and commitment from government. I hope that that will change. I am very disappointed about what is happening in relation to the second Bill.
	I consider progress in our own country to have been slow. I recognise that we have been very influential on the world stage and that we have worked with people in Europe. That is important, and I hope that we can continue to do so in order to improve matters on a global scale. But at home progress is slow. I hope that the Minister can give me some encouragement that the Government mean what they say when it comes to legislation.
	In preparing for this debate, I came across references to the last occasion that we had an energy department. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, talked about a sustainable energy department. That is important, but I consider that energy, and in particular our commitment at Kyoto, is also important. Therefore, I believe that it would be helpful to have an energy department again.
	I conclude by saying that I discovered that the last energy Minister was the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and that a previous opposition energy spokesman was none other than the Prime Minister, the right honourable Tony Blair. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton. This has been an interesting debate and we all look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for giving us the opportunity to try to comprehend the vastness of the subject that he has introduced. He set the scene in an international context and then related it to the pressures upon the UK. He spoke about the pressures that will be brought to bear on our coastal regions and estuaries. That underlies the pressure that will be put upon our precious agricultural land, some of which we are likely to lose. In that vein, I also add my thanks to the many noble Lords who have spoken, including my noble friend Lord Peel.
	It is true that the agricultural industry is well aware of the opportunities that are available and of the responsibilities that it carries. I, too, congratulate the CLA on the very thought-provoking report that it produced and on the 102 recommendations that it made. Perhaps I may inform noble Lords that it is shortly to hold a conference on climate change. I also thank my noble friend Lord Garel-Jones for his contribution. He pointed out that those of us who create more fuel emissions should be held responsible and he expressed the hope that the US would come aboard very shortly.
	I was interested in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. She said that we all have a role to play. Indeed, we have. Her speech took me back in my mind to the "Keep Britain Tidy" week, which is still in being. Perhaps the Government would consider having a "save energy" week, in which they could raise the profile of what we as ordinary individuals can do. "Keep Britain Tidy" was a small initiative but it led to great rewards. Perhaps the Minister will consider that issue.
	As many noble Lords have said, the essentials of the situation are as follows. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and the Second World Climate Conference have all stated their belief that the world is growing hotter because of man's activities. The main problem is carbon dioxide. Stabilisation of the situation will require cuts of 60 per cent world-wide in emissions into the atmosphere. It should be noted that, in order to achieve an average of 60 per cent, the developed world may have to reduce output by 90 per cent—a frightening amount.
	If cut-backs are not made, it is possible that sea levels will rise—it has been forecast by up to 2½ feet—and the incidence of storms and droughts will worsen to the point where, by the year 2050, there may be 150 million or more environmental refugees. As other noble Lords have already said, most would be from Africa and from low-lying eastern hemisphere countries such as Bangladesh and Polynesia. But several million such refugees would be from Europe, America and parts of the UK. Even stabilisation implies a final total of twice as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as was the case 250 years ago and average temperatures of 2 degrees higher than now.
	So to Kyoto, where 84 developed countries agreed to cut their emissions by an average of 5.2 per cent of the 1990 output by the year 2010. Within that 5.2 per cent, the EU has a target of an average of 8 per cent, and the UK has accepted 12.5 per cent, with an unofficial aim of 20 per cent. Noble Lords should bear in mind that the average saving necessary in order to avert disaster is 60 per cent. Therefore, although we have set a high level, we are still way below the estimate of some people.
	The Kyoto treaty will come into force three months after a minimum of 55 of the original 85 countries have ratified. As at 7th December last, only 33 countries had done so. That does not mean that the remaining 51 are not trying; but it does mean that sanctions cannot be applied if they fail.
	The Government's substantial, integrated package of policies and measures to deliver cuts in emissions was set out in March 2000 in their draft UK programme summary. That included the following aims: to stimulate new sources of power generation by using renewables for 10 per cent of electricity and by doubling the capacity of combined heat and power; to cut emissions from the transport sector; to promote better domestic energy efficiency; to continue reducing emissions from agriculture and forestry; and, lastly, to ensure that the public sector takes a leading role, as other noble Lords have already mentioned, by improving energy management in public buildings, by setting efficiency targets for local authorities, schools and hospitals and by developing green travel plans.
	We are nearly one-fifth of the way to 2010, so we should ask, "How are they doing?". Some noble Lords have already expressed their concerns about the progress being made. Will the Minister list the efficiency targets that so far have been set for local authorities? Will the Government set individual targets for schools and for hospitals? If not, how will the aim be achieved? Can she explain the figures that were quoted on 4th December last year in another place in relation to increases in energy use of 77 per cent in the area of health and 23 per cent in the Treasury?
	I now turn to transport. In 1996 transport was responsible for 31 million tonnes of carbon dioxide out of a total of 154 million tonnes of emissions. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House how much progress has been made towards the target of a 25 per cent improvement in fuel use by 2008 in new cars.
	In 1996 domestic combustion accounted for roughly one-sixth of those emissions. As a consumer, I am aware that in the past two years electricity prices have fallen while gas prices have risen. Can the Minister confirm that one result has been to switch electricity generation from gas back to solid fuel?
	That brings me to power generation, which in 1996 was responsible for 43 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, nearly 30 per cent of the total. In 2000, 2.8 per cent of the electricity generated in the UK came from renewables. In Scotland it was 8.25 per cent; in Wales it was 3.25 per cent because of hydro power; and in England and Northern Ireland it was only 1.5 per cent. Will the Minister tell the House whether the target of 10 per cent is for the UK as a whole or for each country individually?
	The introduction of the renewables obligation has now been delayed until April. Can the Minister assure the House that that is the final, final publication deadline? Can she confirm that the new electricity trading arrangements working group did indeed report by the end of January as promised by the Secretary of State? Even more importantly, has it come up with workable solutions to a situation that has caused the closure of small wind farms and a 60 per cent reduction in energy production from combined heat and power? The Government are well aware that the existing system for making connections to the national and local grids does not suit small wind farms. Changes have been promised. Is the Minister able to put a firm timescale on that?
	I turn to biomass, which other noble Lords have mentioned. It is produced by farmers for burning in power stations. Several farmers I know planted willow, while their neighbours watched with interest, but some "jobsworth" in the Ministry decided not to pay a planting grant until the farmer had a contract for the sale of the output. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
	As other noble Lords have said, this is an infant industry which is only just past being an R & D project. The electricity supply companies have won a battle and are now free to import timber by the boat-load, confident that our embattled farmers will largely diversify elsewhere. They may have won a battle, but I see this issue as a campaign which is important to the increase in use of renewables and important for the future of agriculture.
	For the future, biofuels are of great potential importance. The recently published Curry report recommended a reduction in road fuel duty to the equivalent level of other clean fuels. Has the Minister discussed that subject with the Chancellor? If not, will she do so before the Budget? I urge the Government to include in their R & D focused research into the use of low emission and renewable products for the heating of homes, factories and workplaces.
	I close by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, on his thoughtful maiden speech. We look forward to hearing from him again. I know that he is a busy businessman, working on the international scene, but we hope that he will be able to spare time to participate often in the House. As other noble Lords have said, the Government have made a good start, but we have a long way to go if this country and others are to reach the targets.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I feel that I have a long way to go tonight given the range and depth of information that has been given and the range of questions that have been asked. It has been an outstanding debate. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on securing the debate. We share with him the knowledge that it is an extremely important issue. Like the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I am only too aware of the depth of knowledge that there is in your Lordships' House.
	As my noble friend said, the evidence is mounting that our climate is changing. He and other noble Lords described the effects that climate change is having and will have in the future. It is important to note that the UK has played a vital role in the research that has been carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
	We have always believed that the Kyoto Protocol represents the best framework for addressing the problem of climate change. We are now working with the EU and other member states to ensure that the protocol is ratified—I shall deal with that point in more detail in a moment—and that it comes into force by this year's world summit on sustainable development in Johannesburg. We shall begin our own ratification procedures once the European Community has adopted the decision that will allow it to ratify the protocol.
	We are making strong progress on implementing the range of policies that were outlined in our climate change programme. We believe that the UK has much to gain by facing the challenges head on. My noble friend has already mentioned that we estimate that the programme will cut the UK's emissions of greenhouse gases by 23 per cent below 1990 levels by the year 2010.
	Our programme is providing a strategic focus for action against climate change in the UK, bringing together positive action by businesses, local government and other organisations. It is encouraging longer-term changes and a move towards a low carbon economy. We are implementing a series of innovative and creative policies that will ensure that the UK cuts its greenhouse gas emissions in a flexible and cost-effective way.
	I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford that it is important to see this subject in the context of the world. We have a target to provide 10 per cent of the UK's electricity from renewable sources by 2010, backed up by at least £250 million over the next three years.
	The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, in an outstandingly impressive maiden speech, gave me particular heart because of his recognition that we need a spirit of optimism, that we should not despair and that we have to take action. The style of his contribution led me to think that if I were 45 years younger I would have been given a sense of hope for the future of the world and the knowledge that I must get on and do some work to achieve what is possible. I congratulate him and look forward to hearing him speak again.
	The noble Lord, Lord Browne, recognised that the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme, backed by £215 million over five years, is due to go live on 1st April. It is one of our priorities as a government. We see emissions trading as a cost-effective mechanism for making a low carbon future a reality.
	The climate change levy will also help to fund measures to promote better energy efficiency in business. The Carbon Trust will recycle around £100 million of climate change levy receipts to boost the take up of cost-effective low carbon technologies.
	The European Union level voluntary agreements with car manufacturers to improve fuel efficiency—a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—by at least 25 per cent, backed up by changes to vehicle excise duty and company car tax, will encourage more fuel efficient low emission cars and of course be part of the 10-year plan for transport.
	It is clear that we need to adapt to some climate change in the UK, whatever we do to reduce emissions. I should like to refer to the fact that we are building adaptation into mainstream policy, making areas like flood defence, water resources and revisions to building regulations. We have begun a cross-government process to stimulate and monitor action on adaptation. We continue to support the Climate Impacts Programme (UK) in helping implementation of adaptation strategies on the ground by regional and local authorities and private organisations. To help them, the Climate Impacts Programme (UK) will be issuing higher resolution national climate change scenarios in the spring.
	We should recognise the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and BP have made to the development of emissions trading. They have taken a leadership role, not just by setting up an internal trading scheme, but also in the partnership between government and the business-led Emissions Trading Group, whose fruits we shall see when the UK starts in April.
	The noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, raised the issue of meeting targets agreed under the EU's burden-sharing agreement. They are constantly monitored within the EU. The UK, Germany and possibly Luxembourg are at the moment the only EU countries which are on target. Nevertheless, the other member states have taken some radical steps to get themselves back on target. The EU, as a whole, is committed to meeting the targets that have been set.
	Following the withdrawal of the US from Kyoto in March 2001, over 170 countries came together in Bonn in July and in Marrakech in November to agree the rules to implement the Kyoto Protocol. This is an enormous achievement, which clearly demonstrates the desire to put in place a global solution to a global problem. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and my noble friend Lord Judd and other noble Lords referred to that matter. We look forward to the next international meeting on climate change scheduled for October 2002 in India and the early entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol.
	I agree with noble Lords who have raised the issue of tackling the problem of climate change in co-operation with the US. The US is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses and it must play its role in reducing those emissions. The Government are pleased that President Bush acknowledged that climate change poses a serious challenge. That was recognised in June 2001. The US is now undertaking a climate change policy review. The Government have been encouraging the US to ensure that the review results in substantial action to tackle climate change. In that way, the US can help to provide the same global leadership in this area as the European Union.
	We have no interest in having any hostile relations—I have to say to my noble friend Lord Judd—with the US. But we want to continue to work constructively with it and ensure that it is fully aware of our commitment to the need to tackle the issue. We would like the US fully to re-engage in the international process and the door remains open for it to do so.
	My noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, referred to developing countries. We welcome the co-operation between the UK and India and China on climate change. We are pleased that we are able to assist through our collaborative programme with India and China to assess the impacts of climate change. We understand that China does not have a target on Kyoto, but has been successful in reducing CO2 emissions per dollar of GDP by some 47 per cent between 1990 and 1999. Total emissions fell by about 6 per cent between 1996 and 1999, the most recent years for which we have data.
	The noble Lords, Lord Ezra and Lord Garel-Jones, my noble friends Lord Judd and Lord Hunt, and other noble Lords raised the issue of the protocol coming into force. The deal reached at the climate change convention was adopted by a large number of countries. Kyoto can enter into force without the US but, as I have said, it is very important that we encourage the US to come back into the negotiations.
	My noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the issue of the process and the procedure within the EU of the UK's ratification. For legal and presentational reasons, the UK needs to ratify the protocol at the same time as other member states. The first step in the process is for the EC to ratify. A Council decision is currently under negotiation, which it is hoped will be agreed at the Environment Council on 4th March. The UK will then be able to complete the necessary ratification procedures and process.
	I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the issue of Russia. It has made positive remarks about ratification in the closing session of the second conference of parties in Marrakech in November, but has yet to make a firm commitment to ratification. We hope that Russia will soon be in a position to do so. We believe that it is in Russia's interest to ratify and that it would indicate that it was showing global leadership in this area.
	My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis raised an issue concerning UK businesses. As with the optimism shown by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, we believe that there will be opportunities for UK businesses to improve their energy efficiency and cut costs and get ahead of their competitors in developing cleaner technology and moving in to new markets. Perhaps I may also say that I can think of few other areas where we should encourage both young men and young women to go into science and technology. Given that they could have a role in tackling some of the problems of pollution and of climate change, it may change the focus of young people's thinking and increase the number going on to study science.
	I believe that I have answered the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. It is a process that has to be adopted within the European Union. We recognise that the Spanish presidency is aiming to reach agreement on the decision at the Environment Council. The Council has given a public commitment that the Community should be in a position to deposit the ratification agreement instruments by early June. We hope that all member states will meet that timetable. It would allow the protocol to enter into force in advance of the world summit on 26th August.
	My noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the issue of adaptation to impacts. We have issued guidance to flood defence operating authorities in England and Wales, which includes allowance for sea level rise and higher river flows as a result of climate change. Work is being done on strategies and plans for water resource management, catchment obstruction management and maintenance of supplies in drought conditions. We have strengthened planning guidance in PPG25 and will review it in three years' time, in the light of experience.
	In spite of the fears of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, we have held a ministerial discussion on adaptation to the effects of climate change, and a cross-governmental process to stimulate and monitor action on adaptation is being taken forward. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford raised the issue of developing countries, as did my noble friend Lord Judd. Work on adaptation under the United Nations is funded by the Global Environment Facility, to which we contribute. We are calling for a 50 per cent increase in contributions at the next replenishment. The Bonn agreement established an adaptation fund under the facility to help developing countries in their efforts to combat the impact of climate change.
	Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, sought to draw me on the issue of the PIU energy review and some of the budgetary issues that will flow from consideration of that report. I am sure that they do not expect me to anticipate my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in advance of the Budget. We are aware that issues such as fuel mix and fuel pricing policy have been considered and will be part of the recommendations that the Government will consider in due course.
	My noble friend Lord Hunt of Chesterton also asked about setting a renewables target for 2020. That issue is also being considered as part of the PIU energy review, and the Government will consider it further in the light of their recommendations. Among others, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, raised the issue of nuclear energy. We are on track to meet the Kyoto target, which takes us to 2012 without new nuclear build. The Climate Change Programme set out the strategy for delivering further cuts, so that we could move beyond that target. The review will have considered that, and we look forward to the recommendations.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel, asked about the achievement of government targets. Renewables accounted for 2.8 per cent of electricity generated in 2000. Figures for electricity generation for 2001 will not be available until mid-summer. However, we expect the introduction of renewables obligation contracts scheduled for April to help to work towards the 2003 target. We recognise that 10 per cent is challenging, but we believe that it is achievable. In the United Kingdom, we start from a low base on renewables, and we have taken that fully into account in developing our policy.
	The Government are promoting combined heat and power. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that, in the case of this Government, the Treasury is not part of the problem: it is part of the solution. There is exemption from the climate change levy of all inputs into good quality CHP and the generated electricity supplied directly to the end-user. CHP is eligible for enhanced capital allowances on investment in energy-saving technology. Electricity-generating plant and machinery in CHP schemes is exempt from business rates. That also answers some of the points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Peel.
	The noble Earl, Lord Peel—I believe, although I am not sure—raised the issue of fuel tax and aircraft. No, it may have been another noble Lord who raised the issue. I apologise. Discussions are being taken forward. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Peel, did, in the context—

Earl Peel: My Lords, indirectly, the noble Baroness is absolutely right. It was in a little anecdote at the end of my speech.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I think that it was to do with vegetables having come from a long way away.
	Discussions are being taken forward by the Government and the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It is a matter that must be developed internationally.
	In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, I must say that the framework on emissions trading starts in August 2001. I shall write to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis and other noble Lords about the scheme throughout the whole of the EU and the proposed EU trading scheme. We are keen that it should be compatible with existing training schemes and similar arrangements that exist not only here but in other member states.
	I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the noble Earl, Lord Peel, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and my noble friend Lord Judd of the potential importance of biofuels. The Government already offer a tax incentive of 20p per litre, and we will consider it again in the light of the review. I share the view of the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and other noble Lords that it is an extremely important area, in terms of the contribution that the rural economy can make.
	To my noble friend Lady Thornton I say that we already have a website provided by DEFRA, which explains about climate change. I am assured that it is fun and interesting; it includes games and quizzes.
	I welcome the extremely positive contributions to the debate. We will have a difficult task. We recognise that there must be action locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, can never be satisfied; he is an idealist and a perfectionist, as is right. I say to him that the Government are doing much, and we know that there is much still to do. I welcome co-operation, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, will keep us optimistic enough to keep trying to work together to solve the problem.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate; they have been very constructive and extremely interesting. In particular, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley—not Madingford; those of us in Cambridge know where Madingley is—for his optimistic speech. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Ex-servicemen

Lord Campbell of Croy: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the situations of surviving ex-servicemen who were severely wounded, or suffered serious injuries to health, as a result of enemy action in the Second World War.
	My Lords, in asking this Question I shall be calling attention to a particular category of ex-servicemen. They are all over 70 in age—they are survivors because the normal pattern of human mortality means that many of those who were severely wounded in World War II will not be alive today. Even the able-bodied, with a normal span of three score years and 10—that is regarded as the norm, though life expectancy has increased considerably over the past 100 years—probably need special attention and supervised care. I understand that there is now no Member of Parliament in the other place who is old enough to have been in the Armed Forces in World War II.
	I must declare an interest as a war casualty. Having been commissioned in the Army at the beginning of the war in 1939, I was wounded on the day before Hitler committed suicide at the end. I then spent over one year in hospital, followed by some months in and out of hospital. The hospital was St Bartholomew's, then evacuated to rural Hertfordshire. The other patients in my ward were all wounded servicemen, some severely. That started my interest and my concerns that I later raised in Parliament.
	When we were able to leave hospital we came under the wing of the wartime military medical organisation and its services. However, some 20 years later the ex-servicemen were informed of a major change. In future we would be dealt with by the Department of Health. That seemed a sensible rationalisation; and the number of disabled veterans from World War II was dwindling. They all received letters assuring them that the NHS had been charged with an obligation to give them priority in treatment. A letter which I received recently from BLESMA—the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association—tells me that that is nowadays often forgotten. It states that BLESMA has to remind the NHS trusts and NHS staff that that priority still exists.
	That is the main message I wish to transmit in raising this subject in Parliament today. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who is due to reply, to confirm that the Government still recognise that priority, and that they circulate it within the NHS. It is not a burdensome task. The survivors are steadily decreasing in number, as I have pointed out.
	The transfer in the early 1970s of medical care and supervision to the NHS was a landmark event, and a nightmare for some. It had its problems for the clients. For example, in my case the papers with the specifications for the callipers and associated equipment—the orthotic devices—which I had to use, and still have to, were lost in the transfer. So were other important papers concerning wounded ex-servicemen. Those papers were necessary for routine replacements and many ex-servicemen, including me, had to make several special journeys in order that measurements be taken again—quite unnecessarily—for future replacements. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, can assure us that that will not happen again.
	As an illustration, I should like to mention two soldiers who were in the same ward as me in St Bartholomew's Hospital in 1945 and 1946. One was a sapper officer, and he had lost both hands. Another was an infantryman who had lost both feet. The first, as noble Lords will have guessed, had been neutralising or lifting enemy landmines, a sapper's job, and the second—an infantry soldier—had been blown up on a mine when he was advancing during an operation against the enemy. Even then, 56 years ago, artificial limbs were fitted for them. But they were simple and unsophisticated compared with what is available now.
	In my case I had been wounded the day before Hitler committed suicide, having started in the Army just before the war in 1939. I had been commanding a field battery in the Scottish Division for three years, but my time in the Army was now being brought to an end by enemy action.
	My admiration for the surgeons and staff in St Bartholomew's grew steadily as they repaired us. I must make it clear that I had no reason to complain about treatment over the years. My complaints were usually about bureaucracy. The medical treatment has always been excellent and my colleagues report the same. My injuries were the result of a bullet fired at very close range which passed through my middle, hitting some things but just missing vital others.
	I want to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, arising from the announcement that some tax had recently been charged incorrectly on war pensions that are supposed to be tax-free. Were war disability pensions affected? They are supposed to be tax-free. I gave the noble Lord notice of my question so I hope that he will be able to provide us with the relevant information.
	The term "war pension" is misleading. Most of those now receiving a war pension were not involved in any war. Many sustained injuries in this country while on duty. That is the point. A soldier may have fallen off a ladder in the barracks at Aldershot. If he was doing the job on duty, his compensation—to which he is rightly entitled—is called a "war pension". I suggested it be renamed "Armed Forces disability pension", to avoid the confusion which so often arises from that description.
	As this is a Question and not a debate, I cannot speak again. But I thank those who have put their names down to speak, in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the noble Lords, Lord Hardy and Lord Weatherill.
	To recapitulate, I hope that the reply from the Government Front Bench will deal with two points. First, do the Government still expect priority to be given to ex-servicemen wounded in action? Secondly, can they give us an assurance about the continuing priority for disabled ex-servicemen? In relation to tax, have some of the war pensions to which I referred—war pensions and disability pensions—been incorrectly taxed, as reported in the recent controversy in the newspapers? I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some information on those matters.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for getting us together tonight—a rather select little band; we all know each other. It will be an interesting though short debate.
	Perhaps the Minister will allow me to take this subject in a slightly broader way. I have to declare—as I think all noble Lords know—that much of my life involves veterans' affairs. I am dedicated to that activity and enjoy it. I shall not list the number of associations or charities with which I am associated. They can be seen on the computer. The positions are all unpaid, as they should be because we volunteer for these activities.
	What does a veteran need? What does he want? We have been bad, historically, at looking after our veterans. All political parties are culpable. No one has taken much notice of our veterans, men or women. Other countries in the Commonwealth, and even our enemies of the past, give more status and recognition to a veteran than we as a nation do. At the end of the war it became blindingly obvious to us that no British government was going to look after the veterans and that we had better look after them ourselves. Therefore, these great organisations look after the veterans. Their work involves welfare, benevolence and care for members representing perhaps a small ship, an RAF squadron or a regiment which has its own association.
	A veteran deserves status within the nation. At times he deserves recognition. He always needs help and care as he gets older. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, regarding the status and recognition of the veteran. He generally behaves with dignity and quietness. He does not boast of what he has done for his nation. Therefore, I take issue with the fact that, medically, he does not receive priority. As the noble Lord said, the National Health Service should give priority to a veteran. So should the GP. If priority is not given, and the veteran is stuck in a corner on a trolley, or told to come back in two or three years' time for an operation, he should carry some form of recognition. Many veterans' organisations have a veterans' gold card. Everyone is talking about ID cards at present. Perhaps in conjunction with that, some form of recognition could be given. I hope that the Minister will consider that issue.
	All veterans have great hopes in and support for the Minister for veterans' affairs. We have been asking for many years for a Minister with responsibility for veterans' affairs. I congratulate the Government on at last providing one. However, we must ensure that the number of staff the Minister is given is adequate for the job and that the position is not a political cosmetic to make everything seem better.
	I hope that the Government will support their Minister for veterans' affairs. He needs support. I mention two stumbling blocks. Some veterans may refer to "the enemy". I refer, first, to another place. The general feeling is that Members are quite good at looking after themselves, their emoluments and pensions. I understand that they are now talking about partnership pensions for both genders. It is time that they were alerted to the fact that there are veterans and that Members are sitting on their green Benches because of the veterans' work in stopping this nation being invaded and conquered.
	I believe that the Minister for veterans' affairs will have considerable trouble with local government. We find that veterans are somewhat pushed to one side by the vast majority of local councils or local government. There have been times—the Government put the matter right—when veterans' pensions were stopped because they received other gratuities and so on. If the task is to be a success, the Minister and his staff will have to bring local government on side. The ethnic—they are now British—associations of warriors from India, west Africa and the small group of African ex-servicemen have been somewhat left out. I am a trustee of the old Indian Army Association based in Southall. The most marvellous man, Wing Commander Puji—he fought in the Battle of Britain in a Spitfire and a Hurricane and went on to fight again in Burma—is very much its leader. The association is full of the most tremendous warriors which only the Martial Tribes of India could and did produce in the war.
	I pay tribute to the War Pensions Agency. The Burma Star Association has a good relationship with it. We go to the agency in Blackpool. A veteran is our contact man. It does its best but it is under much constraint. If the Minister for veterans' affairs is to do his job he must look closely at the difficulties that the agency has in helping with the disablement pensions and normal pensions. In the Burma Star Association alone last year—we are probably the only other tri-service organisation apart from the Royal British Legion and SSAFA—the agency had to deal with 300 to 400 problems. We had success.
	We had to deal with 200 to 300 widows' problems. Thanks to the agency, we had some success. When we talk of veterans, it is often forgotten that the issue involves widows. There used to be 30,000 to 35,000 members of the Burma Star Association. The number is down to 13,000. We shall die. Quite a lot of people might breathe a sigh of relief; it will cost less money here and there. But there are 20,000 widows. I have told them, sadly, that in my lifetime I shall not have time to dance with every one of them before I kick the bucket. But those widows have to be taken care of. Most of the associations of all three services pay great attention to their widows. They are perhaps the main priority of the Burma Star Association and other associations with which I am associated.
	The Minister will be aware that there are rumours—they are more than rumours—of a merger between the larger associations. That would be no bad thing, but the two organisations concerned carry out all the case work. The Royal British Legion and SSAFA are two outstanding organisations, which in many ways take the lead in our association affairs. Their raison d'être is case histories and visiting veterans and widows.
	All mergers, whether of businesses or charities, always end up in a row about who will be the boss and who will manage the organisation. The bureaucracy can get bigger and everything can go into default because of that. I am not saying that a merger is not a good idea, but one has to look very carefully at it. I hope that the Minister of veterans' affairs will be allowed consider the issue.
	I hope that representatives of the new department get out and about and visit the veterans. We have great faith in the Minister. We have told him that we will give him a year to 18 months before we start to get beastly and twist his tail and so on. As I have said, I hope that there will be sufficient staff.
	There are many good, young retired officers—young in comparison to my age, perhaps 55 or 60 years old—and warrant officers of all three services. If the Minister had a dozen of those on his staff, they could get out into the country, learn about all the different associations—right down to the smaller ones which do marvellous jobs for their regiments, ships, squadrons and so on—and they could be his eyes and ears.
	If the Minister really wants to know how to run a good veterans' association, he should visit Australia. The Returned Services League of Australia and its other organisation, Legacy, are blueprints for such organisations. They are most outstanding. I declare an interest. I have been a member of the Returned Services League of Australia for some time and I am its representative in Great Britain on the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League.
	I have gone slightly over my time. We support the Minister and wish him well. We are here to help him. Someone should come and talk to us and ask how we can work together and make a success, for the first time, of all the veterans' organisations in Great Britain.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. Both noble Lords have spoken from positions of considerable authority. No one is more qualified to speak on this subject than the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
	Let me offer a word of encouragement. I have recently been studying the 1891 census for Wath-upon-Dearne and Brampton Bierlow, where I now live next door. In 1891 there were 280 people aged 65 or more, about 3 per cent of the population. When the 2001 census, or perhaps the 2011 census, is published, we can expect that that percentage will be at least four or five times higher, and rising. So one hopes that many veterans will still be with us for a very long time, including both noble Lords who have spoken.
	They have presented a formidable case. During my service in the other place, I found that when I pursued war injury matters the officials who dealt with those cases were sympathetic. So they should be. The ex-servicemen involved were wounded and injured on behalf of all of us. It is right that the priorities which have been promised should be pursued.
	I wish to make a fresh point which I believe is relevant. In addition to the provision of substantial public support, the voluntary ex-service organisations play an essential role. First, they provide guidance and assistance in the representation of individual cases; secondly, and substantially, they provide additional, complementary and supplementary support which assists public funds. But, in order to carry out their function, which may be increasingly difficult for the reasons already given, they need to maintain public attention and public support in order that their funds are not diminished.
	During the past few years they have faced, and for the rest of this decade they will face, substantial demands as the effects of ageing mean that veterans become more disabled, suffer greater hardship and have less mobility. For that reason, it is important that society does not create situations in which the veterans' organisations are prevented from attracting public attention. It is to that issue that I shall now address my remarks.
	I live in South Yorkshire; I am a member of the Royal Air Force Association; and I am president of an absolutely first-class Air Training Corps squadron. In September of each year we have in Rotherham a parade on Battle of Britain Sunday, as is the practice in every other area. But it has particular importance in areas like mine. During the Second World War, after the first year or so, miners were not allowed to join the Armed Forces unless they volunteered for aircrew. A very large number of them did, and many died. Some of the survivors are friends of mine.
	The late Ken Sampey, president of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, was a navigator; the former Chief Constable of South Yorkshire was a flight sergeant air gunner; the former mayor of my borough, a ward colleague of mine on the local authority, was a warrant officer air gunner who survived two tours. Not many did that. One flew on the Dambusters' raid. One was the office manager of the Yorkshire miners' offices during Mr Scargill's first years in charge there. There were many. Some of them died. Some are still alive, and I hope that they will be alive for a long time. We have that legacy.
	We are joined on Battle of Britain Sunday by veterans. The young people on my squadron, my cadets, can see the veterans. One chap has a double Pathfinder decoration from Bomber Command. At last year's service, a friend of mine, Doug Segar, who flew Hurricanes in 1940, read Gillespie's High Flight, which was quite an experience. And yet, shortly before that event, the organiser of our march was contacted by the police and was told that we might have to cancel or pay a fee of more than £500. I wrote to the Chief Constable—it was a matter of policy—and I received a reply from a sergeant, who referred to a constable at divisional level who was in charge of events, parades and ceremonials. I was not happy about that because it was a matter of policy.
	It was suggested that some members of ACPO are not happy about having parades and ceremonials, although they accept that there should be one on Armistice Sunday. I am not satisfied that any inhibition on activities of this kind will be useful. It is right that young people should be exposed to reality. They should have an opportunity to see the living history that my cadets can see on Armistice Sunday.
	We were then told that we could hold the parade in 2001. I have made it clear to the authorities that we hope to hold it each year for as long as the veterans wish to take part in it.
	This is important because in the few days before the Battle of Britain service, veterans, other supporters and our cadets raise money for the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, which is a very good cause, as the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, is aware. Therefore, I am concerned about the matter.
	I was concerned also to find that the Girl Guides were prevented from holding a rally. I am waiting to see what happens in April, when the Boy Scouts hold a parade and church services. Scouts, scout leaders and parents gather for that event.
	I believe that it is quite right to hold these events. For people to argue that they are a denial of human rights, as has been suggested, is absurd. We may occupy a road for a short time; we may be denying someone the use of that road. All right, we are denying their human right—if they are intolerant and unreasonable and feel aggrieved. But are they not denying the human right of those of us who wish to honour those who fell, or were injured, or served? Are we right to deny young people the opportunity to see that there is such a thing as service to the community? Or do we want them all to be roaming the streets aimlessly?
	Therefore, I have been in correspondence with the Home Office. I have tabled a Question for later this month. I hope that the Answer will be a satisfactory one. If the inhibitions to which I have referred develop, the ex-service organisations will find themselves attracting less attention and will, therefore, experience a diminishing income at a time when the veterans most need our support and sustenance, as they age and as mortality beckons. We should be acting irresponsibly if we allowed the kind of experience that we had—and which we have temporarily overcome in Rotherham—to develop in other areas. As the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, will be aware, one of the organisations with which he is involved faced a threat—I believe a sum of £1,500 was mentioned. That is not tolerable. We are not raising money for veterans' organisations to pay into the public coffers because of a short-sighted and unwise approach, which needs to be deterred and discouraged by the Government as early as possible.

Lord Weatherill: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating this short debate. As a regular soldier with a courageous war record and having suffered severe wounds, which, sadly, are still with him, the noble Lord speaks from personal experience and knowledge.
	The Question is whether those who have suffered as a result of enemy action and who sustained serious injuries are being properly looked after. Similarly, the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, has made some positive suggestions in respect of veterans, notably those in the Burma Star Association. The noble Viscount and I have a number of things in common. I am a member of the Burma Star Association. I also share a room with the noble Viscount. Therefore, we have been able to co-ordinate our speeches to ensure that the contents do not overlap.
	As some of your Lordships may know, like the noble Viscount, I had the privilege of serving with Indian troops in the Burma campaign and in Malaya. Our Army commander was the noble Viscount's highly distinguished and much loved father, Field Marshal Slim. Fortunately, I was not wounded, but many of those with whom I served were killed and others were severely wounded. It is, therefore, natural that I should take an interest in the welfare of those who survived.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and I are active members of the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League (BCEL). I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what BCEL has done, and continues to do, to support those Commonwealth veterans who fought with us in World War II with such loyalty and bravery.
	I mention two initiatives in particular with which the noble Viscount and I are associated. The first is the Jubilee Appeal of the British Commonwealth Ex-Services League. It is often overlooked—or perhaps more accurately, forgotten—that over 5 million men and women from the Commonwealth fought with us in World War II in defence of the freedoms which, sadly, too many people today take too much for granted.
	In the Indian Army alone, some 3 million volunteered to fight for a country that they had never seen and a monarch they had only heard about. They formed the largest volunteer army that the world has ever known. Casualties were great—over 36,000 were killed or wounded—and in the process no fewer than 30 VCs were awarded.
	Others came from the Caribbean and from East and West Africa. They served in all three services, as well as in the Merchant Navy and in civilian work, and notably in the nursing services. There is little doubt that, without their contribution, the allied war effort would not have succeeded, and the war would have gone on for a great deal longer had they not been with us.
	BCEL was founded after the First World War by Field Marshal Earl Haigh. Incidentally, he was the grandfather of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. Since that time, it has helped Commonwealth ex-servicemen and women in need, and continues to do so. With a tiny staff of only four, but with volunteers in Commonwealth countries, BCEL dispenses around £1 million per annum to those in need.
	But as the years roll on, we find that demands for support outstrip our resources as more and more of our comrades in arms, without pensions or welfare and often living on starvation levels, are unable to fend for themselves in their old age.
	Under the leadership of our Grand President, HRH Prince Philip, BCEL has established this year a Jubilee Appeal to raise £5 million—a positive response to this debate. I take this opportunity to commend this initiative. It is surely a matter of honour that we should care for those who did their duty by coming to our aid in our hour of need.
	The time allotted for this debate is short. However, perhaps I may commend one further initiative with which the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and I are associated; namely, the memorial gates now under construction at the top of Constitution Hill. I know that taxi drivers, and possibly some of your Lordships, curse the traffic jams. But it may come as a surprise that, apart from a small plaque in St Paul's Cathedral and another in the cloisters of Westminster Abbey, there is no major memorial in London to the troops of the Indian Sub-continent, East and West Africa or the Caribbean islands who took part in either of the world wars. Therefore, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, with the generous support of the Millennium Commission and with other generous contributions from numerous individuals, the memorial gates will be a lasting and long overdue memorial to the Commonwealth troops from the countries I have mentioned who came to our aid in the First World War, 1914-1918, and in the Second World War, 1939-1946. They did so in such numbers, and fought with such courage and loyalty—every single one of them a volunteer.
	I began by saying that it was a privilege to have served in the Indian Army and to have fought in Burma with such fine troops. It was indeed. I conclude by again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating the debate and for giving me an opportunity to let your Lordships know that BCEL will continue to bring aid and comfort to the surviving ex-servicemen and women who supported us in such numbers and with such loyalty.
	We are not asking for money from the Government, strangely enough. We should like some, of course. But we should not forget the contribution of those troops. We should help them now, in their hour of need.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raises the standard today for an important group of people who were required to go wherever they were told and to put their lives on the line in order that this country should remain free. I cannot claim to be such a veteran. I am one of that one-time famous breed known as war babies. I was born during the war. Fortunately for me, my father was in a reserved occupation and was not called up, but the vast majority of men of his age were called up. Many of them did not come back, and many of those who did were injured to some extent.
	The Question refers to ex-servicemen who were seriously wounded or suffered serious injuries to health. One of the difficulties that many ex-servicemen find is that, while their injuries were not terribly serious when they came back—not serious enough to stop them working or carrying out a normal life—the older they get, the more difficulties those injuries cause them. As the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, said, as people get older they become more disabled anyhow. If someone is carrying an old injury, even if they appeared to have recovered from it in the past, it can often reappear and cause particular mobility problems and psychological problems in later life.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I had in mind the prisoners of war of the Japanese in south east Asia. Those who survived suffered very serious injuries even though they were not wounded by weapons.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall refer to those people later.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Slim, referred to the recent appointment of a Minister responsible for veterans' affairs. That is linked with the Government's new Veterans' Forum and their taskforce. It is tempting to be cynical when the Government talk about forums and taskforces because they have set up so many of them, but in this instance the move is welcome. It is a clear recognition of a need that should have been dealt with before. From these Benches we welcome that very much. It is too soon to judge the outcome of the initiatives because they began only last year, but we shall look at the effects of the new appointments and bodies. We sincerely hope that, by working together with veterans' organisations and others, they will be able to do the work that has been identified.
	When I was talking to others in preparation for the debate, somebody said to me that it is all right being an injured and disabled war veteran as long as you are prepared to be patient. If you wait, sooner or later somebody will come along and look after you. I questioned him further about the NHS priority that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned. He said that the situation was often all right within the NHS, but a lot of what such veterans need if they are living at home in the community does not come from the NHS but is on the borderline between NHS, social services, housing and other agencies. There is not the same recognition among those non-NHS agencies of the important status that people who have offered the ultimate sacrifice and come back injured or disabled need.
	It has been suggested to me that a lot of elderly disabled people have problems with equipment and adaptations, particularly mobility equipment such as electric wheelchairs, which can be extremely sophisticated these days, as well as the more run-of-the-mill social services adaptations such as stair lifts which allow people to continue living in their own homes. In some cases those are a matter for the NHS but in many cases they are a matter for social services. The arrangements by which they are delivered vary considerably from place to place.
	The organiser for the Royal British Legion in the north of England, who is a near neighbour of mine, said that there have been improvements in charities working together on providing mobility equipment. They are getting their act together and are now working together quite well. However, that is not necessarily the case with local authorities. In some cases they are able to work together with local authorities and perhaps share the cost of an electric wheelchair, which might be £2,000 to £3,000, but in other cases they cannot. Once such people have been assessed as needing a wheelchair, the local authority view is often that they should go on the list. The local authority will pay but the person concerned will have to wait, so it might be 18 months before they are able to get the wheelchair.
	It might be helpful if the Government could provide advice to local authorities in the case of people who have served in the Armed Forces, for whom some funding may be available from charities such as the Royal British Legion and others. There should be co-operation between the charities and local authorities. As an indication of the importance of that work, I have been told that 40 per cent of the mainstream funding grants that the Royal British Legion provides in the north of England now goes on mobility equipment.
	Many of the services that former servicemen and war veterans receive are not specific to them but are part of the general services within the community. Because of their particular difficulties, in many cases they find that they can no longer live in their own homes and they have to go into residential accommodation. I am aware that there is financial pressure on residential accommodation provided by charities and that difficulties are caused by the new, more stringent regulations that the Government are bringing in for such homes, for the best of motives. However, most of the war veterans whom I have talked to have been in local authority old people's homes. There is real concern that provision in that sector is being dramatically reduced. In Lancashire, where I live, the county council has just published a one-option consultation proposal that three-quarters of its homes for the elderly should be closed. The council wants to transfer the resources to domiciliary care. That affects 36 homes across Lancashire. That has caused a lot of alarm for people who can see no option but to live in a home at a time when the private sector is also being put under great pressure.
	My final concern relates to those who were prisoners of war in Japanese camps in the Far East. The compensation payments that have been made to those former prisoners have been very welcome, but it is a matter of great regret that the way in which the scheme was announced gave the impression that those payments would be made to all the former prisoners who had served in the British forces, including those among the 5 million Commonwealth citizens—or citizens of the Empire, as they were then—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill.
	The subsequent news that that understanding was inaccurate—although it had been very widely publicised in the press in places such as India and Pakistan and in newspapers such as the Daily Jang in this country—caused enormous disappointment and gave a very poor impression of what this country is about. People who were mainly officers, mainly white and largely still British citizens quite rightly received compensation. Those who held other ranks and were mainly Indian citizens—although they may now be Pakistani or Bangladeshi citizens—did not receive compensation although they had served in the Indian Army.
	There was a widespread belief that they would get compensation; many people living in towns and villages on the Indian subcontinent believed that they would be receiving it. When the point was brought home to them that they would not be receiving compensation, many servicemen and widows felt great disappointment and anger, partly because they thought that they would be receiving it. It has not done this country's reputation much good at all, certainly not among those with whom I have been in contact, at second hand through a friend of mine, in villages in the Punjab in Pakistan.
	The compensation payments would have been quite outstanding and transformed those people's lives. They were given the vision that they would be receiving compensation. Hundreds of thousands of forms were filled in and sent to this country, but they were all sent back with the words, "Sorry, no". It is not a very happy episode at all.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, as a past serving member of the Lifeguards I am only too aware of the importance of the debate that has been initiated by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy.
	Participation in conflict creates unique circumstances once that conflict ceases, particularly if the participant was injured during service. Historical records suggest that pensions in one form or another have almost always been paid to the casualties of war. During King Alfred's reign, pensions or the equivalent in grants of land were an established form of reward for disablement. Queen Elizabeth I declared that:
	"such as have adventured their lives and lost their limbs, or disabled their bodies in defence of Her Majesty and the State, should be relieved and rewarded that they may reap the fruit of their good deserving".
	The current Government have done rather a lot to raise awareness of "veterans' affairs" and to improve the situation of ex-servicemen. During the last Parliament, the Veterans' Advice Unit was established. It is a confidential helpline to advise ex-servicemen and their families on where and how to obtain expert advice on a number of issues. The facility went online in May 2000.
	Like the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I welcomed the appointment of Dr Moonie in March 2000 as Minister with responsibility for veterans affairs. Since his appointment, the Veterans Forum has been created along with the Veterans Task Force. Those bodies are intended to identify the issues that concern ex-servicemen and to ensure that the policies of individual government departments and of devolved administrations are co-ordinated. They also look at co-operation between government and veterans' organisations and at education.
	Recently, pensions have been the best publicised aspect of ex-servicemen's situation, due largely to the tax error. Last month, Dr Moonie announced that,
	"a number of Army pensioners have had their attributable invaliding pension mistakenly taxed".—[Official Report, Commons, 23/1/02; col. 891.]
	The MoD examined the files of more than 25,000 ex-servicemen and found that 1,003 had been underpaid. The 1952 income and corporation taxes legislation made pensions tax free if they were granted on account of medical unfitness attributable to service in the Armed Forces. Civil servants managing Army pensions failed to take that into account. The Daily Telegraph estimated that the oversight could cost about £50 million, although the MoD disputes that.
	So the current Government have some achievements, but what about the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is currently under review? That MoD review has been running for three years. When will it be completed? BLESMA—the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association—while emphasising its appreciation of the war pension, has expressed concern about maintenance of that pension against other pensions and allowances. The association would,
	"value a regular articulated commitment to that principle from the Government".
	For example, the unemployability supplement paid to those whose war disability prevents them from working has thus far been seen as equating to the retirement pension. The unemployability supplement used to increase at the same rate as the retirement pension but it no longer does. When will the Government consider rethinking that issue?
	Last November, the president of the Forces Pension Society raised a similar point during a parliamentary lunch meeting. He emphasised the cost-neutral straitjacket that was imposed on the review from the start. Is it correct to impose a cost-neutral straitjacket on those who unselfishly risked their lives and limbs for their country? The constraint means that existing resources are merely redistributed and war pensions remain well behind standard practice elsewhere.
	The Forces Pension Society criticises current policy in a number of ways, ranging from the duration of the reviewing process—compared with that undertaken for the parliamentary pension scheme—to the well-documented anomalies and inequities that occur and will continue to occur. For example, a major who retired in 1977 receives £4,269 less per annum than an exactly comparable major who retired two years earlier, in 1975. The widow of an ex-serviceman also can be subject to anomalies within the system—anomalies based on the date of her marriage. Will the Government ensure that ex-servicemen are provided for at a level comparable with other professions or indeed comparable to their parliamentary masters?
	Another issue is whether war pensions should be disregarded when councils are working out entitlements to help with rent and council tax. At present local authorities have discretionary powers on whether to disregard war disablement and war widows' pensions. So we have a situation in which disregard depends on where a war pensioner lives. In other words, we have post-code pensions. Is it true that the Government have no plans to change that?
	Another important matter relating to ex-servicemen is how easily they can gain access to healthcare. As has been said, in 1953 hospitals run by the Ministry of Pensions for the treatment of war pensioners were transferred to the NHS. The Government undertook to ensure that war pensioners would receive priority treatment in NHS hospitals for the conditions for which they received a war pension or gratuity. In 1997 the definition of the term "war pensioner" was extended to include those injured during the inter-war years. However, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, have said, BLESMA has expressed concern that priority treatment in the NHS is often forgotten at the point of delivery. BLESMA states that,
	"the NHS has a duty to remind its staff on a regular basis. BLESMA often has to remind Trusts and staff that the priority exists".
	Ex-servicemen who have lost a limb are also entitled to a duplicate limb. BLESMA is concerned that this is becoming an increasingly mythical provision in the NHS. Funds earmarked by the NHS for the limb service are not ring-fenced and can become lost at the local trust level. BLESMA has heard from one limb centre that it now feels forced to deny war pensioners this additional service. Will the Government issue a circular to remind the NHS that the priority exists so as to ensure that war pensioners will receive priority treatment in NHS hospitals for the conditions for which they received a war pension or gratuity?
	The Royal British Legion is the leading charitable organisation dedicated to ex-servicemen and their dependants. Some 15 million people are eligible to approach the legion. Its activities touch the lives of many more people than that. The legion offered free representation at some 6,000 war pension appeal cases during 2000. It provides breaks in homes for people who have been ill or bereaved and homes specialising in nursing and residential care. It is expected that the demand for long-term care will increase over the next few years. Figures suggest that 40 per cent of those eligible for help will require some form of care at the age of 70, and 70 per cent at the age of 80. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned nursing in that connection.
	The RBL is the best known organisation but there are countless others in the voluntary sector, all of which do a tremendous amount of work in protecting the interests, welfare and memory of ex-service people and their dependants. It is pleasing to see that the Government prioritise co-operation between government and the voluntary sector.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government. I have found it a fascinating debate to listen to. If one is allowed to discriminate among your Lordships, I think they will all understand when I say that I was particularly fascinated to hear the contributions of the three speakers who had suffered during the Second World War. I found what they had to say absolutely fascinating. I pay tribute in particular, of course, to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for initiating the debate. I recognise his incredibly distinguished service.
	I shall try to reply to most of the points that were made. Some of the comments I shall make will relate more generally to ex-servicemen and women rather than specifically to those who served in the Second World War. Some of the comments I shall make will relate to the situation post-World War Two when, of course, changes were made.
	At the end of December 2001 there were 274,000 war pensions in payment comprising 223,000 war disablement pensions and around 51,000 war widows' pensions. Of course, a large proportion of those are in respect of service in World War Two, which the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, specifically addresses. In looking at the figures when researching the issue one realises that there are, incredibly, still people in receipt of pensions who served in World War One. It is sobering to think of people's contribution to that war.
	It is only right for me to pay tribute—as one would expect anyone of my generation to do—to those who risked and gave their lives in the Second World War to ensure that people of my generation could live in freedom. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said that he was a Second World War baby, as was I. I took the precaution of not arriving until after we had won the Battle of Britain and the world was a little safer. Our generation owes an enormous debt to the preceding one.
	As a number of speakers, including my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath and the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, have mentioned, we are also indebted to all those volunteers who support the ex-servicemen's associations in so many different ways. My noble friend Lord Hardy mentioned his former constituency and I hope that it is not invidious of me to think of mine. I think of a good friend of mine, Dennis Edwards, the chairman of the Telford branch of SSAFA in Shropshire and the voluntary work that these people do in numerous ways, for example, helping people with their pensions, helping widows and assisting with bereavement. They assist in a whole range of ways. All that is done voluntarily and they would not dream of asking for any reward. As we all know, that is happening up and down the country.
	A wide range of information is available in respect of the various schemes that are available to people who have been in the services and what they provide. There is a statutory provision for a report on war pensions to be presented to Parliament each year. That report, the war pensioners' report, details the current number of war pensions' recipients and also gives information on the various issues affecting war pensioners considered by the statutory central advisory committee on war pensions. That committee meets twice a year with the Minister responsible for veterans' affairs. Committee members traditionally represent major ex-service organisations.
	A further statutory annual report is presented to Parliament by the chief executive of the War Pensions Agency. The War Pensions Agency annual report and accounts detail how the war pensions scheme is administered and include details of performance targets and achievements. Those documents fully describe the rules of entitlement for pensions benefits under the schemes and record the levels at which pensions are set. It is, of course, vitally important that we disseminate the information and that people know exactly what their entitlements are.
	I wish to mention briefly the Armed Forces Pension Scheme which, as the House will know, was introduced after the Second World War but is part of the overall picture. The normal full retirement age for Armed Forces personnel is 55, by which time most individuals have earned a full career pension. However, immediate pensions are payable on retirement at younger ages. Pensions are increased annually in line with the rate of inflation using the RPI so that they maintain their purchasing power.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, asked a specific question as to when the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme would be complete. The review's emerging findings were published for a period of public consultation last year which ended on 3lst July. The responses to the consultation are now being considered. The Government will publish a report on the outcome of the consultation in due course.
	I am not going to give the House endless detail about the levels of war pensions. I simply point out that they are available to people who served after the Second World War as well as to those who were injured or bereaved as a result of service during the Second World War. This Government have fully protected the purchasing power of war pensions by uprating them again in April this year in line with the retail prices index. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who specifically raised the issue that the recent problem over tax has not affected the war pensions to which I refer, which are tax free. It is important to be absolutely clear about that point.
	Over the years the provisions of the War Pensions Scheme have been improved and extended to include not only preferential pensions in respect of disablement and death, but a dedicated welfare service and a wide range of supplementary allowances, many of which are paid at higher rates compared to social security benefits.
	There is another point about the special service that is provided to all war pensioners. I understand from reports to us that it is greatly valued. I refer to the War Pensioners Welfare Service. It exists to help war pensioners, war widows, their dependants and carers and to provide personal confidential advice and support. The welfare service works very closely with the ex-service charities and it is held in high regard by the ex-service community.
	I remind the House of the service it provides. Whatever the needs of a pensioner or widow, the War Pensioners Welfare Service aims to provide a confidential service of the highest standard. All the welfare staff undergo professional training and the type of help they can assist in delivering is infinitely varied. The following are a few examples touching on some of the issues which have been raised during this debate: first, making sure that a person receives their full entitlement to a war pension; secondly, checking entitlement to any other state benefits; thirdly, obtaining financial assistance from ex-service charities; fourthly, helping with a move to residential care, which refers to a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves; fifthly, assisting with disability problems, which is extremely important; and, sixthly, arranging a number of other benefits which are of particular advantage to war pensioners.
	A number of speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Rotherwick, but more specifically the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, raised the issue of priority treatment for war pensioners in the National Health Service. I can assure the House that the Government remain committed to the longstanding pledge that war pensioners should be given priority in National Health Service hospitals for examination or treatment relating to their pensioned disablement, subject always, of course, to the needs of emergencies or other cases which demand clinical priority. There has been absolutely no change in the position on that. The War Pensions Agency liaises with colleagues in the health service to ensure that periodic reminders about the priority treatment arrangements are issued to hospitals, GPs and other key individuals in the referral process. War pensioners themselves are also informed of their right to priority treatment in leaflets issued by the War Pensions Agency with award notifications in pensions books. They are also informed of the importance of telling their GP about the disability for which a war pension or a gratuity has been awarded. That is an extremely important issue. I hope that I have clarified it.
	I now move to the Veterans' Initiative, which I am so pleased was welcomed by so many speakers. It is one of the themes of this Parliament to try to ensure that—I do not like phrases such as "a joined-up approach" but the House knows what I am talking about—different government departments relate to one another in a common cause, particularly when it is as important as veterans' issues.
	There was a welcome for this from a number of speakers, including the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves and others. It was because of the Government's determination to provide a co-ordinated government focus for veterans' concerns that on 14th March last year my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced that Dr Lewis Moonie, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, would also become responsible for ensuring that veterans' issues are properly understood, appropriately prioritised and effectively addressed right across government.
	The appointment of a Minister for veterans' affairs demonstrates clear recognition by the Government of the special status of the ex-service community and the unique contribution that it has made to the nation. I should like to put on the record the three priorities identified for the initiative. They were: first, to pull together the Government's response to issues that cut across government departments, such as the assistance that is provided to address homelessness or ill-health; secondly, to ensure that the lessons learnt are absorbed into future Ministry of Defence planning; and, thirdly, to co-ordinate communication by publicising and demonstrating the full range of assistance that is offered to veterans by central and local government and to ensure that veterans' organisations have the opportunity to represent their concerns to government at ministerial level.
	Several noble Lords pointed out that my honourable friend Lewis Moonie has chaired two new groups, the Veterans Task Force and the Veterans Forum. The Veterans Forum is precisely the kind of body in which many of the issues that were discussed by noble Lords can be raised. We were given, I believe, 18 months on probation by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim. I am sure that my honourable friend in the other place will read this debate and take notice of that. However, I am very pleased with the start that has been made. A number of issues have already been discussed by the Veterans Forum. One concern is that the generation that is not represented here—the younger generation—should be made aware of all that has happened in the past.
	I am running out of time and I shall finish very soon but I want to relate a tremendously heartening experience from my former constituency. Every year around Remembrance Day there is a ceremony of light, at which young people play in a band and a candle is lit for 100 people from the Wrekin area who gave their lives. The fact that it takes 12 years to get through the full list of people who gave their lives in two world wars gives some indication of the sacrifices that were made.
	In conclusion, the Government are open with Parliament and ex-service organisations on what to do for those who are disabled or bereaved as a result of service to this country. There is a comprehensive package of help and support which includes financial recognition by way of the various service pensions and professional help and advice in the form of the War Pensioners' Welfare Service and the Veterans' Initiative, to which I have already referred.
	The Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, specifically related to World War II. I know that the House will understand that whatever the level of benefits that our servicemen and women receive, it could never be enough to repay the sacrifice of those who risked and gave their lives saving our country's freedom and, in so doing, defending the whole of the free world.
	Our debt is immeasurable but I hope that the report that this welcome debate has enabled me to present to the House gives some assurance about the practical measures and assistance that the Ministry of Defence is giving to those who have themselves given so much.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, I shall try—with my memory being what it is—to be helpful. We very often forget the Merchant Navy. There is currently a problem about who is responsible for it. There is no need for the Minister to answer that now. Merchant seamen wear veterans' medals, they fought from their merchant ships and many thousands of them died in the sinking of those ships. Perhaps the Minister would care to think about that matter. I know that we accept anyone with a Burma Star, for instance, whether he was in the Royal Navy or the Merchant Navy.

Lord Grocott: My Lords, I assure the noble Viscount that I shall write to him on that detail.

House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.